K.S.A. » Chapter 22
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 22-3210 (2026)

Plea of guilty or nolo contendere; time limitation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

22-3210. Plea of guilty or nolo contendere; time limitation. (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.

(c) In traffic infraction, cigarette or tobacco infraction and misdemeanor cases the court may allow the defendant to appear and plead by counsel.

(d) (1) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere, for good cause shown and within the discretion of the court, may be withdrawn at any time before sentence is adjudged.

(2) To correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea.

(e) (1) Any action under subsection (d)(2) must be brought within one year of: (A) The final order of the last appellate court in this state to exercise jurisdiction on a direct appeal or the termination of such appellate jurisdiction; or (B) the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States supreme court or issuance of such court's final order following the granting of such petition.

(2) The time limitation herein may be extended by the court only upon an additional, affirmative showing of excusable neglect by the defendant.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3210; L. 1982, ch. 146, § 1; L. 1984, ch. 39, § 39; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 60; L. 1996, ch. 214, § 31; L. 2009, ch. 61, § 1; April 16.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 404 cases (153 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Aguilar, 231 P.3d 563 (Kan. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Aguilar, 231 P.3d 563 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 21× “" At no point in the hearing, however, did the court inform Aguilar pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3210(a)(2) of the maximum punishment she faced for her crime.”
State v. Davis, 485 P.3d 174 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 11× “"K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3210(d)(2) permits a defendant to file a postsentencing plea withdrawal motion to correct manifest injustice.”
State v. Davisson, 370 P.3d 423 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 15× “22-3210(e)(1) provides that any action under subsection (d)(2) to withdraw a plea must be brought within 1 year of “[t]he final order of the last appellate court in this state to exercise jurisdiction on a direct appeal or the termination of such appellate jurisdiction” or “the…”
State v. Edgar, 127 P.3d 986 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 12× “at 269 (“While we do not approve of any failure *38 to comply strictly with the explicitly stated requirements of K.S.A. 22-3210, it does not follow that eveiy deviation therefrom requires reversal.”
State v. Moses, 127 P.3d 330 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 18× “He alleged that the district court violated K.S.A. 22-3210 (Ensley 1988) when it failed to personally advise him, and establish he understood, that by entering guilty pleas, he would be waiving certain constitutional rights.”
State v. Herring, 474 P.3d 285 (Kan. 2020). · cites it 12× “[T]he district court not only found that Herring's attorneys met the objective standard of reasonableness but also expressly found that they were 'competent,' 'effective,' 'capabl[e],' and had done a 'good job' in representing Herring.”
State v. Kelly, 318 P.3d 987 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 7× “Those revisions are not applicable to Kelly’s motion. On remand, the district court again denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
State v. Hill, 467 P.3d 473 (Kan. 2020). · cites it 16× “He styled it a "Motion to Set Aside a Void Judgment Under Due Process of Law and K.S.A. 22-3210." The trial court appointed counsel, both parties filed briefs, and oral 4 arguments were heard on October 12, 2017.”
State v. Shaw, 910 P.2d 809 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 22× ““K.S.A. 22-3210 embodies due process requirements as set out by the United States Supreme Court in Boykin v.”
State v. Terning, 460 P.3d 382 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 22× “Under K.S.A. 22-3210, a court considering a defendant's plea must determine— and the record must affirmatively disclose—that the defendant enters his or her plea voluntarily and with an understanding of its consequences.”
State v. Heffelman, 886 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 19× “Prior to accepting defendant’s pleas, the trial court satisfied the due process requirements set forth in K.S.A. 22-3210. Specifically, the trial court advised the defendant of the rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty and informed the defendant of the consequences of his…”
State v. Kelly, 244 P.3d 639 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 9× “It should be noted that K.S.A. 22-3210 was amended in 2009. L. 2009, ch.”
Show all 404 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(1) — 1 case
Morris v. State, 573 P.2d 1130 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(3) — 2 cases
State v. McCreary, 89 P.3d 659 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Christensen, 937 P.2d 1239 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(4) — 1 case
State v. Calderon, 661 P.2d 781 (Kan. 1983).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(4)(b) — 1 case
Taylor v. State, 843 P.2d 682 (Kan. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(7) — 9 cases
State v. Underwood, 615 P.2d 153 (Kan. 1980).
State v. Stough, 41 P.3d 281 (Kan. 2002).
State v. Harrison, 646 P.2d 493 (Kan. 1982).
Noble v. State, 727 P.2d 473 (Kan. 1986).
State v. Vasquez, 36 P.3d 246 (Kan. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(a) — 26 cases
State v. Edgar, 127 P.3d 986 (Kan. 2006). “at 269 (“While we do not approve of any failure *38 to comply strictly with the explicitly stated requirements of K.S.A. 22-3210, it does not follow that eveiy deviation therefrom requires reversal.”
State v. Woodring, 435 P.3d 54 (Kan. 2019).
State v. Chesbro, 134 P.3d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Barahona, 132 P.3d 959 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Herring, 474 P.3d 285 (Kan. 2020). “[T]he district court not only found that Herring's attorneys met the objective standard of reasonableness but also expressly found that they were 'competent,' 'effective,' 'capabl[e],' and had done a 'good job' in representing Herring.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(a)(1) — 5 cases
State v. Cox (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Smith (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
City of Wichita v. Lewis, 428 P.3d 823 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Forney (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Altum (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(a)(2) — 49 cases
White v. State, 421 P.3d 718 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Edgar, 127 P.3d 986 (Kan. 2006). “at 269 (“While we do not approve of any failure *38 to comply strictly with the explicitly stated requirements of K.S.A. 22-3210, it does not follow that eveiy deviation therefrom requires reversal.”
State v. Johnson, 410 P.3d 913 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Terning, 460 P.3d 382 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “Under K.S.A. 22-3210, a court considering a defendant's plea must determine— and the record must affirmatively disclose—that the defendant enters his or her plea voluntarily and with an understanding of its consequences.”
State v. Aguilar, 231 P.3d 563 (Kan. 2010). “" At no point in the hearing, however, did the court inform Aguilar pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3210(a)(2) of the maximum punishment she faced for her crime.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(a)(3) — 17 cases
State v. Edgar, 127 P.3d 986 (Kan. 2006). “at 269 (“While we do not approve of any failure *38 to comply strictly with the explicitly stated requirements of K.S.A. 22-3210, it does not follow that eveiy deviation therefrom requires reversal.”
McGoldrick v. State, 104 P.3d 416 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
Taylor v. State, 843 P.2d 682 (Kan. 1992).
State v. Moses, 297 P.3d 1174 (Kan. 2013).
State v. Hulett, 263 P.3d 153 (Kan. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(a)(4) — 29 cases
State v. Edgar, 127 P.3d 986 (Kan. 2006). “at 269 (“While we do not approve of any failure *38 to comply strictly with the explicitly stated requirements of K.S.A. 22-3210, it does not follow that eveiy deviation therefrom requires reversal.”
State v. Ebaben, 281 P.3d 129 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Shaw, 910 P.2d 809 (Kan. 1996). ““K.S.A. 22-3210 embodies due process requirements as set out by the United States Supreme Court in Boykin v.”
State v. Snellings, 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Wilson, 421 P.3d 742 (Kan. 2018).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(a)(l) — 1 case
State v. Larry, 843 P.2d 198 (Kan. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(b) — 7 cases
State v. Heffelman, 886 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1994). “Prior to accepting defendant’s pleas, the trial court satisfied the due process requirements set forth in K.S.A. 22-3210. Specifically, the trial court advised the defendant of the rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty and informed the defendant of the consequences of his…”
State v. Garcia, 283 P.3d 165 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Browning, 774 P.2d 935 (Kan. 1989).
State v. Sims, 887 P.2d 72 (Kan. 1994).
State v. Morse, 855 P.2d 87 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(c) — 3 cases
State v. Muriithi, 46 P.3d 1145 (Kan. 2002).
State v. Key, 312 P.3d 355 (Kan. 2013).
State v. Legg, 13 P.3d 355 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(d) — 131 cases
State v. Aguilar, 231 P.3d 563 (Kan. 2010). “" At no point in the hearing, however, did the court inform Aguilar pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3210(a)(2) of the maximum punishment she faced for her crime.”
State v. Kelly, 318 P.3d 987 (Kan. 2014). “Those revisions are not applicable to Kelly’s motion. On remand, the district court again denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
State v. Green, 153 P.3d 1216 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Davisson, 370 P.3d 423 (Kan. 2016). “22-3210(e)(1) provides that any action under subsection (d)(2) to withdraw a plea must be brought within 1 year of “[t]he final order of the last appellate court in this state to exercise jurisdiction on a direct appeal or the termination of such appellate jurisdiction” or “the…”
State v. Taylor, 975 P.2d 1196 (Kan. 1999).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(d)(1) — 101 cases
State v. Herring, 474 P.3d 285 (Kan. 2020). “[T]he district court not only found that Herring's attorneys met the objective standard of reasonableness but also expressly found that they were 'competent,' 'effective,' 'capabl[e],' and had done a 'good job' in representing Herring.”
State v. Frazier, 461 P.3d 43 (Kan. 2020).
State v. DeAnda, 411 P.3d 330 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Glover, 336 P.3d 875 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Edwards, 440 P.3d 557 (Kan. 2019).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(d)(2) — 102 cases
State v. Davis, 485 P.3d 174 (Kan. 2021). “"K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3210(d)(2) permits a defendant to file a postsentencing plea withdrawal motion to correct manifest injustice.”
State v. Showalter, 553 P.3d 276 (Kan. 2024).
State v. Adams, 304 P.3d 311 (Kan. 2013).
State v. Adams, 465 P.3d 176 (Kan. 2020).
State v. Bricker, 252 P.3d 118 (Kan. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(d)(l) — 7 cases
State v. Bricker, 252 P.3d 118 (Kan. 2011).
State v. Macias-Medina, 268 P.3d 1201 (Kan. 2012).
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Burrell, 367 P.3d 318 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Brown, 263 P.3d 217 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Jones, 271 P.3d 1277 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(e) — 19 cases
State v. Kelly, 318 P.3d 987 (Kan. 2014). “Those revisions are not applicable to Kelly’s motion. On remand, the district court again denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
State v. Benavides, 263 P.3d 863 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Kelly, 244 P.3d 639 (Kan. 2010). “It should be noted that K.S.A. 22-3210 was amended in 2009. L. 2009, ch.”
State v. Smith, 505 P.3d 350 (Kan. 2022).
State v. Rodriguez, 494 P.3d 155 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(e)(1) — 41 cases
State v. Davis, 485 P.3d 174 (Kan. 2021). “"K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3210(d)(2) permits a defendant to file a postsentencing plea withdrawal motion to correct manifest injustice.”
– State v. Fox, 453 P.3d 329 (Kan. 2019).
State v. Davisson, 370 P.3d 423 (Kan. 2016). “22-3210(e)(1) provides that any action under subsection (d)(2) to withdraw a plea must be brought within 1 year of “[t]he final order of the last appellate court in this state to exercise jurisdiction on a direct appeal or the termination of such appellate jurisdiction” or “the…”
State v. Hill, 467 P.3d 473 (Kan. 2020). “He styled it a "Motion to Set Aside a Void Judgment Under Due Process of Law and K.S.A. 22-3210." The trial court appointed counsel, both parties filed briefs, and oral 4 arguments were heard on October 12, 2017.”
State v. Johnson, 410 P.3d 913 (Kan. 2018).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(e)(1)(A) — 3 cases
State v. Gonzalez, 444 P.3d 362 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Edwards, 226 P.3d 1285 (Kan. 2010).
State v. Davis (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(e)(2) — 42 cases
State v. Davisson, 370 P.3d 423 (Kan. 2016). “22-3210(e)(1) provides that any action under subsection (d)(2) to withdraw a plea must be brought within 1 year of “[t]he final order of the last appellate court in this state to exercise jurisdiction on a direct appeal or the termination of such appellate jurisdiction” or “the…”
State v. Davis, 485 P.3d 174 (Kan. 2021). “"K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3210(d)(2) permits a defendant to file a postsentencing plea withdrawal motion to correct manifest injustice.”
State v. Smith, 366 P.3d 226 (Kan. 2016).
State v. Gonzalez, 444 P.3d 362 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Hill, 467 P.3d 473 (Kan. 2020). “He styled it a "Motion to Set Aside a Void Judgment Under Due Process of Law and K.S.A. 22-3210." The trial court appointed counsel, both parties filed briefs, and oral 4 arguments were heard on October 12, 2017.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3210(e)(l) — 6 cases
State v. Smith, 366 P.3d 226 (Kan. 2016).
State v. Williams, 366 P.3d 1101 (Kan. 2016).
State v. Benavides, 263 P.3d 863 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Szczygiel, 279 P.3d 700 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Moses, 297 P.3d 1174 (Kan. 2013).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.