State v. Woodring, 117,347

Citation309 Kan. 379,435 P.3d 54
Decision Date01 March 2019
Docket NumberNo. 117,347,117,347
Parties STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Andrew Martin WOODRING, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas

309 Kan. 379
435 P.3d 54

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Andrew Martin WOODRING, Appellant.

No. 117,347

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed March 1, 2019.


Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Ellen Hurst Mitchell, county attorney, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, was with her on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Rosen, J.:

309 Kan. 379

Andrew Woodring entered a plea of no contest to felony murder. He takes a direct appeal to this court from the order denying his motion to withdraw his plea.

Woodring was a participant in a vehicular shooting that resulted in the death of a young woman. The State charged him with one

309 Kan. 380

count of premeditated first-degree murder, or, in the alternative, felony murder; one

435 P.3d 56

count of attempted first-degree premeditated murder; one count of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle; one count of conspiracy to commit aggravated battery; and one count of interference with law enforcement.

Woodring, who was 17 years old at the time of the shooting, was charged as an adult. It was alleged he provided and drove the car used in the shooting and that he also contacted the shooter and suggested that he bring a gun with him on the drive. On April 18, 2016, he entered into an agreement to plead no contest to felony murder in exchange for the State's agreement to dismiss other charges.

On June 6, 2016, Woodring filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea. The court gave his counsel leave to withdraw and appointed new counsel to represent him at a subsequent hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. After hearing testimony from Woodring, the court denied his motion to withdraw and sentenced him to a term of life imprisonment with a minimum mandatory sentence of 25 years before he would be eligible for parole. Woodring took an appeal to this court under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3).

An appellate court reviews a district court's decision to deny a plea withdrawal motion and the underlying determination that the defendant has not met the burden to show good cause for abuse of discretion. State v. Reu-El , 306 Kan. 460, Syl. ¶ 1, 394 P.3d 884 (2017).

"Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, i.e., if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court; (2) is based on an error of law, i.e., if the discretion is guided by an erroneous legal conclusion; or (3) is based on an error of fact, i.e., if substantial competent evidence does not support a factual finding on which a prerequisite conclusion of law or the exercise of discretion is based." State v. Ward , 292 Kan. 541, Syl. ¶ 3, 256 P.3d 801 (2011).

The party seeking to withdraw the plea bears the burden of establishing the district court's abuse of discretion. See State v. DeAnda , 307 Kan. 500, 503, 411 P.3d 330 (2018). An appellate court does not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility when applying the abuse of discretion standard. Reu-El , 306 Kan. 460, Syl. ¶ 1, 394 P.3d 884.

K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3210(a) and (b) permit defendants to enter pleas of guilty or nolo contendere under certain conditions:

309 Kan. 381
"(a) Before or during trial a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may be accepted when:

(1) The defendant or counsel for the defendant enters such plea in open court; and

(2) in felony cases the court has informed the defendant of the consequences of the plea, including the specific sentencing guidelines level of any crime committed on or after July 1, 1993, and of the maximum penalty provided by law which may be imposed upon acceptance of such plea; and

(3) in felony cases the court has addressed the defendant personally and determined that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea; and

(4) the court is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.

"(b) In felony cases the defendant must appear and plead personally and a verbatim record of all proceedings at the plea and entry of judgment thereon shall be made."

K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3210 also allows defendants to withdraw their pleas before sentence is pronounced if they show good cause:

"(d)(1) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere, for good cause shown and within the discretion of the court, may be
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • State v. Barlow
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • February 7, 2020
    ...district court's decision, Barlow bears the burden of establishing the district court's abuse of discretion. See State v. Woodring , 309 Kan. 379, 380, 435 P.3d 54 (2019). RelevanceUnder K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-455(d), "evidence of the defendant's commission of another act or offense of sexual......
  • State v. Ross
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 19, 2019
    ...not support a factual finding on which a prerequisite conclusion of law or the exercise of discretion is based.’ " State v. Woodring , 309 Kan. 379, 380, 435 P.3d 54 (2019) (quoting Ward , 292 Kan. 541, Syl. ¶ 3, 256 P.3d 801 ).Ross acknowledges that the two calls were relevant to the event......
  • State v. Laffoon
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • April 3, 2020
    ...court defers to the district court's fact finding, declining to reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility. See State v. Woodring , 309 Kan. 379, 380, 435 P.3d 54 (2019). Analysis After allowing Wiske and Laffoon to meet in the hallway, the district court denied the renewed request to c......
  • State v. Wright
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 2023
    ... ... its discretion in denying his presentence motion to withdraw ... plea. See State v. Woodring , 309 Kan. 379, 380, 435 ... P.3d 54 (2019). Appellate courts review the district ... court's factual findings for substantial competent ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT