State v. Anderson, 249 P.3d 425

Anderson was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm in Shawnee County for a 2005 killing.
He pleaded no contest to first-degree murder under a plea agreement proposing concurrent sentencing with a Douglas County case.
The district court explained the agreement contemplated a life sentence with a 25-year mandatory minimum, but did not separately clarify the overall term.
Rosel, Anderson’s counsel, later sought to withdraw the plea; an evidentiary hearing explored counsel’s representations and Anderson’s understanding.
The district court found Rosel credible and Anderson not credible, denying withdrawal; Anderson appealed premised on alleged misrepresentations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credibility of counsel vs defendant	Rosel misled Anderson about the sentence; Anderson understood the plea incorrectly.	Rosel misled Anderson; Anderson understood the plea’s terms; credibility disputes should favor withdrawal.	No abuse; district court’s credibility determinations supported denial.
Competence of representation	Rosel failed to adequately explain concurrent sentencing and possible extra time.	Rosel’s competency is questionable due to family testimony; but evidence shows Anderson understood terms.	No abuse; Rosel’s overall representation was competent per the record.
Whether Anderson was misled or unfairly treated	Anderson was misled and coerced by conflicting advice, violating three-good-cause factors.	Anderson was not misled; note that the court cured confusion at the plea hearing; no unfair treatment found.	No abuse; lack of mislead/mistreatment evidence; understanding declared.
Whether the plea was fairly and understandingly made	The plea was not understandingly made due to off-record statements by counsel.	Record shows Anderson understood consequences; district court properly weighed credibility.	No abuse; plea understood; good cause not shown.

State v. Williams, 290 Kan. 1050 (2010) (presentence withdrawal standards; multiple-factor test)
State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747 (2010) (substantial competent evidence standard for findings)
State v. Ernesti, 291 Kan. 54 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Aguilar, 290 Kan. 506 (2010) (additional factors for good cause in plea withdrawal)
State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017 (2009) (credibility and weighing of witness testimony on appeal)
State v. Plotner, 290 Kan. 774 (2010) (brief not argued; abandonment rule)