State v. Williams, 87,455
| Decision Date | 07 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 87,455,87,455 |
| Citation | 64 P.3d 353,275 Kan. 284 |
| Parties | STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DONELL WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
John J. Bryant, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Nick A. Tomasic, district attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.
Brian L. Leininger, of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Donell Williams pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder (K.S.A. 21-3401). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of life in prison with a possibility of parole after 25 years. Prior to sentencing, defendant sought withdrawal of his guilty pleas, which motion was denied. Defendant appeals from that denial.
Highly summarized, the factual background of the crimes is as follows. On August 3, 1999, twin brothers Ronnell and Donell Williams, age 14, stole a gun from a residence and commenced walking away from the crime. After proceeding about a block, they saw Wilbur Williams in his front yard on the way to his mailbox. The brothers forced him back inside his residence where they held Williams and his wife, Wilma, prisoner while searching the house for items to steal. Donell Williams left the residence in order to drive the victim's automobile around to the front of the house. While defendant was so engaged, his brother shot and killed the two victims. The victims were not related to the brothers.
Defendant was charged with two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and five other felonies and one misdemeanor. He entered into a plea agreement with the State whereby he pled guilty to the two murder charges with the balance of the charges being dismissed. The pleas were accepted. Prior to his sentencing, defendant wrote a letter to the court requesting withdrawal of his guilty pleas. This letter became the basis for his subsequent Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas. The motion was heard immediately prior to sentencing and denied. This appeal resulted.
This case is before us in a rather unusual posture, best understood by recitation of the following chronology of procedural events:
1. October 27, 1999: Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, five other felonies, and one misdemeanor.
2. November 16, 2000: Defendant entered a plea agreement at a guilty plea hearing. The written plea agreement correctly stated that the sentence for each of the murder charges was life imprisonment. However, at the plea hearing, the defendant was incorrectly orally advised by the district court that "the maximum possible punishment could be anywhere up to 25 years in prison with no parole." 3. December 12, 2000: Defendant wrote a letter to the district court judge asking to have his pleas withdrawn. He alleged numerous grounds as a basis for withdrawing his pleas, including: (1) He was only given a day's notice of the plea hearing; (2) he believed his lawyer showed him the wrong criminal history box; and (3) he believed he should have gotten a better deal because he was not the shooter.
4. January 5, 2001: Defense counsel filed a motion to have defendant's pleas withdrawn and attached defendant's letter of December 12, 2000, as the basis therefore. The motion and the letter did not mention the erroneous statement as to the maximum sentence.
5. January 12, 2001: Defendant appeared for sentencing and argument on his motion to withdraw his pleas. No evidence was presented at the motion hearing. Defense counsel advised the court he had adequately discussed the matter of the pleas with the defendant. The court asked the defendant if he had anything to add to his attorney's statement, and he replied, "No." The State argued its position for denying the motion and indicated it had reviewed a transcript of the plea hearing. The district court denied the motion. The issue of the erroneous statement as to maximum sentence was not raised.
6. January 22, 2001: Defense counsel filed a timely notice of appeal of the order denying the motion to withdraw defendant's guilty pleas. Counsel also requested appointment of new counsel based on defendant's indigency and defendant's allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.
7. February 8, 2001: New appellate counsel was appointed for defendant.
8. June 10, 2002: Appellate counsel filed his brief contending two grounds exist to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty pleas. These are:
A major problem facing defendant in this appeal is that only ground one was presented to the trial court. In his brief, defendant presents his position as to ground one in a summary manner. We will, likewise, dispose of the first ground summarily.
In his brief, defendant's claim in its entirety is stated as follows:
The decision to deny a motion to withdraw a plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and such decision will not be set aside on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Muriithi, 273 Kan. 952, 46 P.3d 1145 (2002) . The hearing on the motion was held immediately prior to sentencing the defendant, wherein ground one was presented to the district court. We find no abuse of discretion in the sentencing court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas.
As previously stated, ground two was never presented to the trial court as a basis for withdrawal of the pleas (or for any other purpose).
K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-3210 provides in pertinent part:
The statute required that the trial court advise defendant of the maximum penalty which could be imposed before accepting his guilty pleas. This the trial court did not do. Specifically, the exchange was as follows:
The sentence for first-degree premeditated murder herein was life on each count. This is the sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adams, 90,318.
...as a general rule, issues that were not raised before the trial court are not eligible to be raised on appeal. State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288, 64 P.3d 353 (2003). This court has recognized several exceptions to this general "`(1) the newly asserted theory involves only a question of l......
-
State v. Anthony
...Diggs, 272 Kan. 349, 365, 34 P.3d 63 (2001). Issues not raised before the trial court may not be raised on appeal. State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288, 64 P.3d 353 (2003). However, there are several exceptions to the general rule that a new legal theory may not be asserted for the first ti......
-
State v. Cook
...57 P.3d 220, 225 (Utah 2002). Cook does not argue that our standard of review is not an abuse of discretion. Citing State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288, 64 P.3d 353 (2003), the State contends that this issue is not properly preserved for appeal because Cook failed to request the trial judg......
-
State v. Raiburn
...an appeal could only come from Supreme Court Rule or statute. The Court of Appeals quoted from Duffy and cited State v. Williams, 275 Kan. 284, 288, 64 P.3d 353 (2003) (issue not presented to the lower court will not be considered on appeal), to demonstrate that the Supreme Court Rules or s......