State v. Walker

• Decision Date: 03 March 2023
• Docket Number: 124,850
• Parties: State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Carrie E. Walker, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

1

State of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Carrie E. Walker, Appellant.

No. 124,850

Court of Appeals of Kansas

March 3, 2023

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Appeal from Montgomery District Court; Jeffrey Gettler, judge.

Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, for appellant.

Michael R. Serra, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before Gardner, P.J., Malone and Hill, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Carrie Walker appeals the district court's summary denial of her motion for habeas corpus relief under K.S.A. 60-1507. Walker contends that the district court erred in denying her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without first holding an evidentiary hearing. After review, we find no error and affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Following controlled undercover narcotics buys, the State charged Walker with multiple drug-related offenses. Although Walker's appointed counsel worked to negotiate

2

a plea agreement with the State, Walker chose to enter no-contest pleas to all charges without concessions from the State. In pleading to all charges within the complaint, Walker rejected a plea offer from the State. Although the record failed to specify the details of the rejected plea offer, Walker's motion alleged it contained these terms: the State would offer 13 years in prison, and she would waive the right to seek a sentencing departure.

At the plea hearing, Walker confirmed that she had read and understood a written acknowledgment of rights. That document advised Walker that the court was not bound to honor any agreement regarding sentencing and that the court could order the sentences to run consecutively up to twice the duration of the base offense. The acknowledgment of rights also disclosed the sentencing ranges for each offense. And at the plea hearing, the district court reviewed the charges with Walker and told her the applicable sentencing range for each offense. After advising Walker of her rights, the district court accepted Walker's no-contest pleas.

Before sentencing, Walker moved for a downward durational and dispositional sentencing departure. At sentencing, the district court denied that motion and sentenced her to consecutive prison terms for a controlling term of 292 months. She appealed to this court, but the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Walker then filed a timely pro se motion for habeas corpus relief under K.S.A. 60-1507, seeking to withdraw her no-contest pleas for ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. She made only one claim against appellate counsel-failing to argue in her direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective. Walker claimed that trial counsel was ineffective in these ways:

3

"(a) Manifest Injustice resulted when counsel coerced and misled client into pleading no contest and not explaining the possible outcome and promising that a downward departure would be granted by entering a plea of no contest

"(b) Prejudice resulted by counsel violated Ms Walker's Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel by encouraging Walker to turn down a plea offer and instead receive a harsher sentence. Counsel shows prejudice by representing other defendants in the same drug sting and now is prosecuting defendants from the same drug sting."

Without appointing counsel for Walker or holding a hearing, the district court summarily denied the motion.

Walker appeals.

Did the District Court Err in Summarily Denying Walker's Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel?

A prisoner in state custody may challenge a conviction or sentence on constitutional grounds by filing a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507(a). When, as here, the district court denies the motion without a hearing, this court is in an equal position to assess the merits of the motion. Thus, we apply an unlimited standard of review without deference to the district court's decision. See State v. Adams, 311 Kan. 569, 574, 465 P.3d 176 (2020) (summary denial of motion to withdraw plea); Littlejohn v. State, 310 Kan. 439, 443, 447 P.3d 375 (2019) (summary denial of K.S.A. 60-1507 motion).

The district court characterized Walker's motion as a request for habeas corpus relief under K.S.A. 60-1507(a) rather than as a motion to withdraw a plea under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3210. Either characterization is correct because, analytically, there is no distinction. Whether we characterize Walker's motion as a request for habeas corpus relief under K.S.A. 60-1507(a) or as a motion to withdraw a plea under 2021 Supp. K.S.A. 22-3210, the latter statute provides the framework for analyzing her claim. See

4

State v. Hill, 311 Kan. 872, 876, 467 P.3d 473 (2020) (characterizing motion challenging due process of plea entry as request to withdraw pleas); State v. Kelly, 291 Kan. 563, 566, 244 P.3d 639 (2010) (construing pro se motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 as a motion to withdraw plea under K.S.A. 22-3210).

"To correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea." K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3210(d)(2). The Kansas Supreme Court has defined manifest injustice in this context to mean something "'obviously unfair'" or "'shocking to the conscience.'" Adams, 311 Kan. at 575; White v. State, 308 Kan. 491, 496, 421 P.3d 718 (2018). Walker bears the burden of establishing that a manifest injustice warrants setting aside her pleas. We review that decision for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Johnson, 307 Kan. 436, 443, 410 P.3d 913 (2018) (citing State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 38, 127 P.3d 986 [2006]). A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when the court bases its decision on an erroneous application of the facts or law. Johnson, 307 Kan. at 443.

Our court generally examines three factors in considering whether a movant has established manifest injustice to withdraw a plea: (1) the quality of representation; (2) the circumstances surrounding the plea that suggest the defendant might have been misled, coerced, mistreated, or unfairly taken advantage of; and (3) whether the plea was fairly and understandingly made. State v. Shields, 315 Kan. 131, 139, 504 P.3d 1061 (2022); Edgar,...