nonevidentiary hearing in Kansas

2007Swenson appealed to the Court of Appeals in Swenson v. State, 35 Kan.

2007Swenson appealed to the Court of Appeals in Swenson v. State, 35 Kan.

2024During the hearing, the district judge explained K.S.A. 22-3210, the good cause standard for withdrawing a plea before sentencing, and the factors for consideration under State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006), noting that "changing your mind is not one of those factors." Sorrells said he "just misunderstood" the deal and wanted to go to trial so he could tell his side of the story.

2024During the hearing, the district judge explained K.S.A. 22-3210, the good cause standard for withdrawing a plea before sentencing, and the factors for consideration under State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006), noting that "changing your mind is not one of those factors." Sorrells said he "just misunderstood" the deal and wanted to go to trial so he could tell his side of the story.

2022The panel upheld the district court and found it fully complied with the statute's unambiguous language by considering the documentation filed by the parties and holding a nonevidentiary hearing, and ruled the district court did not exceed the scope of its authority under K.S.A. 58-4301. 37 Kan.

2019The Court of Appeals' opinion affirming the denial of Roberts' 2008 motion notes that, "[a]fter appointing counsel for Roberts, the district court held a nonevidentiary hearing" and "ultimately denied the motion" because "the motions, files, and records conclusively showed Roberts was not entitled to the relief requested." 2011 WL 1814712 , at *2.

2019With respect to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the panel held that Roberts failed to allege sufficient facts to establish deficient performance by his appellate counsel; therefore, he failed to establish exceptional circumstances to allow him to raise his trial counsel's alleged failure to inform him of a plea offer. 2011 WL 1814712 , at *3-4.

2018State v. Hernandez , 303 Kan. 609 , 613, 366 P.3d 200 (2016).

2018State v. Hernandez , 303 Kan. 609 , 613, 366 P.3d 200 (2016).

2015In Ultreras , the court also drew on a passage from Rodgers to the effect that once a defendant asserts self-defense immunity, “the State has the burden to establish probable cause ‘and it may do so by directing the court’s attention to the evidence of record including witness statements, investigative letters prepared by law enforcement officers, photographs and other documents of record.’ ” 296 Kan. at 841 (quoting Rodgers, 285 S.W.3d at 755 ).

2015In Ultreras , the court also drew on a passage from Rodgers to the effect that once a defendant asserts self-defense immunity, “the State has the burden to establish probable cause ‘and it may do so by directing the court’s attention to the evidence of record including witness statements, investigative letters prepared by law enforcement officers, photographs and other documents of record.’ ” 296 Kan. at 841 (quoting Rodgers, 285 S.W.3d at 755 ).

2009State v. Hemphill Unmentioned in Robertson is the case of State v. Hemphill, 286 Kan. 583, 595 , 186 P.3d 777 (2008), wherein the counsel’s conduct in that case was very similar to the counsel’s conduct in this case, and our Supreme Court held that by abdicating his role as defendant’s counsel, the actions of appointed counsel were both “ ‘egregiously ineffective’ ” and “ ‘highly prejudicial.’ ’’There, counsel had been appointed to represent Hemphill on his motion to withdraw his pleas.

2009State v. Hemphill Unmentioned in Robertson is the case of State v. Hemphill, 286 Kan. 583, 595 , 186 P.3d 777 (2008), wherein the counsel’s conduct in that case was very similar to the counsel’s conduct in this case, and our Supreme Court held that by abdicating his role as defendant’s counsel, the actions of appointed counsel were both “ ‘egregiously ineffective’ ” and “ ‘highly prejudicial.’ ’’There, counsel had been appointed to represent Hemphill on his motion to withdraw his pleas.

2009App. 2d 8 , 114 P.3d 162 (2005), extended the Brown rationale to include a situation where appointed counsel actively advocated against his client’s K.S.A. 60-1507 motion at the nonevidentiary hearing.

2007Jenkins v. State, 32 Kan.