State v. Anderson, 249 P.3d 425

Anderson was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder and possession of a firearm in Shawnee County.
He had a prior Douglas County conviction (second-degree murder and aggravated battery) with a total 187 months' imprisonment.
A plea agreement was reached: no contest to first-degree murder with dismissal of the firearm charge and a joint recommendation that the Shawnee County sentence run concurrent to the Douglas County sentence.
The plea hearing explained a concurrent sentence and a life sentence with a 25-year mandatory minimum, but did not explicitly state the sentence would extend beyond the Douglas County term.
Rosel, Anderson’s counsel, later testified he may have misled Anderson about the actual consequences; an evidentiary hearing was held and credibility determinations were made by the district court.
The district court denied the motion to withdraw the plea, finding no good cause and affirming that the plea was fairly and understandingly made.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion denying withdrawal of the plea.	Anderson contends Rosel misled him; credibility issues warranted withdrawal.	State argues no credible evidence of incompetence or misrepresentation; plea was fair.	No abuse of discretion; credibility finding supported denial.
Whether Rosel’s representation was competent for withdrawal to be granted.	Rosel’s prior statements show incompetence.	District court credited Rosel’s preparedness and understanding.	Rosel’s competence supported; no good cause shown.
Whether Anderson was misled or unfairly treated before accepting the plea.	Anderson relied on off-record assurances of no extra time.	Court and counsel explained potential sentence; Anderson understood.	No misleadings established; plea understood.
Whether the plea was fairly and understandingly made given Anderson’s age/education.	Anderson relied on counsel due to limited education.	Record shows understanding of plea terms.	Record supports understanding; no withdrawal warranted.

State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747 (2010) (review standard; substantial evidence governs factual findings)
State v. Williams, 290 Kan. 1050 (2010) (abuse of discretion in presentence withdrawal cases; three factors)
State v. Aguilar, 290 Kan. 506 (2010) (additional factors may be considered; good cause not limited to three factors)
State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017 (2009) (credibility and standard of review for factual findings)
State v. Plotner, 290 Kan. 774 (2010) (abandoned arguments not raised on appeal)