Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2020In similar cases when "the district court's decision to deny the defendant's motion to withdraw plea may have been guided by an erroneous legal conclusion," the court has consistently reversed and remanded "to ensure that the district court applies the appropriate legal standard to determine whether defendant made the 11 good cause showing." State v. Garcia, 295 Kan. 53 , Syl. ¶ 5, 283 P.3d 165 (2012); see also Aguilar, 290 Kan. at 515 ("The district judge's failure to apply the appropriate standards in the plea withdrawal hearing was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and remand . . . 2020In similar cases when "the district court's decision to deny the defendant's motion to withdraw plea may have been guided by an erroneous legal conclusion," the court has consistently reversed and remanded "to ensure that the district court applies the appropriate legal standard to determine whether defendant made the 11 good cause showing." State v. Garcia, 295 Kan. 53 , Syl. ¶ 5, 283 P.3d 165 (2012); see also Aguilar, 290 Kan. at 515 ("The district judge's failure to apply the appropriate standards in the plea withdrawal hearing was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and remand . . . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Aguilargreen2 sentences2024State v. Aguilar, 290 Kan. 506, 515 , 231 P.3d 563 (2010); see also State v. Garcia, 295 Kan. 53, 63-64 , 283 P.3d 165 (2012) (finding the district court abused its discretion because the court's ruling to deny the plea withdrawal may have been guided by an erroneous legal conclusion, and such uncertainty about the applied standard was enough to reverse its denial and remand for another hearing to apply the appropriate legal standard). 2020In similar cases when "the district court's decision to deny the defendant's motion to withdraw plea may have been guided by an erroneous legal conclusion," the court has consistently reversed and remanded "to ensure that the district court applies the appropriate legal standard to determine whether defendant made the 11 good cause showing." State v. Garcia, 295 Kan. 53 , Syl. ¶ 5, 283 P.3d 165 (2012); see also Aguilar, 290 Kan. at 515 ("The district judge's failure to apply the appropriate standards in the plea withdrawal hearing was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and remand . . . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Vasquezgreen2 sentences2020In Garcia, in denying a plea withdrawal, the district court erroneously cited State v. Ford, 23 Kan. App. 2d 248 , 930 P.2d 1089 (1996) (requiring an allegation of innocence to justify a motion to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing), which was overruled by State v. Vasquez, 272 Kan. 692, 696 , 36 P.3d 246 (2001) ("It is apparent that this court does not require an allegation that defendant is not guilty as charged as a prerequisite for withdrawing a plea of guilty or nolo contendere prior to sentencing. 2020In Garcia, in denying a plea withdrawal, the district court erroneously cited State v. Ford, 23 Kan. App. 2d 248 , 930 P.2d 1089 (1996) (requiring an allegation of innocence to justify a motion to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing), which was overruled by State v. Vasquez, 272 Kan. 692, 696 , 36 P.3d 246 (2001) ("It is apparent that this court does not require an allegation that defendant is not guilty as charged as a prerequisite for withdrawing a plea of guilty or nolo contendere prior to sentencing. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Byrumgreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., United States v. Byrum, 567 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Macias-Medina
green
2 sentences2020Likewise, the judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the attorney and interpreter when they contradicted Macias-Medina's characterization of the plea discussions." 293 Kan. at 839 . 2014Likewise, the judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the attorney and interpreter when they contradicted [defendant’s] characterization of tire plea discussions.” Macias-Medina, 293 Kan. at 839 . | 2 | 2014–2020 |
Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, L.C.
green
2 sentences2021Although Egan raised several reasons at the plea withdrawal hearing why Patterson's representation was not competent, his appellate brief mentions only one—that Egan had outstanding discovery questions for Patterson yet he ignored his repeated inquiries. "'Where [a party] fails to brief an issue, that issue is waived or abandoned.'" Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v Capital Homes, 279 Kan. 178, 191 , 106 P.3d 483 (2005). 2021Although Egan raised several reasons at the plea withdrawal hearing why Patterson's representation was not competent, his appellate brief mentions only one—that Egan had outstanding discovery questions for Patterson yet he ignored his repeated inquiries. "'Where [a party] fails to brief an issue, that issue is waived or abandoned.'" Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v Capital Homes, 279 Kan. 178, 191 , 106 P.3d 483 (2005). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Ford
yellow
2 sentences2020In Garcia, in denying a plea withdrawal, the district court erroneously cited State v. Ford, 23 Kan. App. 2d 248 , 930 P.2d 1089 (1996) (requiring an allegation of innocence to justify a motion to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing), which was overruled by State v. Vasquez, 272 Kan. 692, 696 , 36 P.3d 246 (2001) ("It is apparent that this court does not require an allegation that defendant is not guilty as charged as a prerequisite for withdrawing a plea of guilty or nolo contendere prior to sentencing. 2020In Garcia, in denying a plea withdrawal, the district court erroneously cited State v. Ford, 23 Kan. App. 2d 248 , 930 P.2d 1089 (1996) (requiring an allegation of innocence to justify a motion to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing), which was overruled by State v. Vasquez, 272 Kan. 692, 696 , 36 P.3d 246 (2001) ("It is apparent that this court does not require an allegation that defendant is not guilty as charged as a prerequisite for withdrawing a plea of guilty or nolo contendere prior to sentencing. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Woodring
green
1 sentence2020When a defendant explicitly tells a district court that pleading guilty or no contest was a voluntary act, "the presence of pressure [by others] does not inherently constitute undue coercion." Woodring, 309 Kan. at 383-84 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2020State v. Kelly, 291 Kan. 868, 871 , 248 P.3d 1282 (2011). 2020State v. Kelly, 291 Kan. 868, 871 , 248 P.3d 1282 (2011). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lackey
green
1 sentence2012Finally, as in Lackey , Garcia was notified at the plea hearing of all his constitutional rights and that he would be waiving them by entering his nolo contendere plea. 45 Kan. App. 2d at 270 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.