State v. Allen, 268 P.3d 1198

Allen pled guilty to Amended Count I under a plea deal that the State would dismiss the remaining charges and recommend low-box sentencing with probation per LSIR guidelines.
The written plea agreement required Allen to appear for sentencing as ordered; the State would recommend probation as part of the deal.
Allen failed to appear for the scheduled sentencing on April 11, 2008, triggering a bench warrant and later delays to sentencing.
A second failure to appear on April 30, 2008 again led to a bench warrant, with sentencing ultimately set after a delay.
Allen was arrested September 15, 2008; she appeared October 17-30, 2008 for sentencing; the district court denied specific performance and the Court of Appeals affirmed on procedural grounds, then Allen sought review.
The Supreme Court held that Allen did not preserve the dispositive procedural issue in her petition for review, so the merits of her claim were not addressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State is bound to recommend probation under the plea	Allen argues substantial performance obligates enforcement	State contends no longer bound and can rescind deal	Procedural bar prevents reaching merits; not reviewed

State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927 (2008) (issues not preserved on appeal generally barred; exceptions apply)
Almena State Bank v. Enfield, 24 Kan. App. 2d 834 (1998) (breach not minor may not entail enforcement of nonessential term)
Holmes v. State, 292 Kan. 271 (2011) (preservation rule and appellate review standards)
State v. Roberts, 293 Kan. 29 (2011) (issues not cross-petitioned may be unavailable for review)
State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 (2010) (exceptions to preservation and review discussed)
Trotter v. State, 288 Kan. 112 (2009) (recognizes exceptions to general preservation rule)
McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 (2011) (issue not briefed deemed waived; caution against conditional merits)