State v. Benavides
263 P.3d 863
Kan. Ct. App.2011Background
- Benavides pled guilty in 1994 to attempted sale of marijuana and completed 24 months of probation.
- In 2010, Benavides filed a pro se petition seeking to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate judgment on grounds including lack of deportation risk counseling.
- The district court appointed counsel and set a hearing for April 27, 2010.
- On hearing date, counsel for Benavides separately moved to withdraw plea, citing Padilla v. Kentucky (2010).
- A new 1-year statute of limitations for motions to withdraw pleas after sentencing, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 22-3210(e), became effective April 16, 2009.
- The district court denied the motion solely on timeliness; Benavides appeals arguing the new statute should not bar preexisting claims and that he had a grace period to file.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1-year deadline applies to preexisting claims. | Benavides argues the new statute cannot retroactively bar preexisting claims. | State contends the amendment governs post-sentencing motions regardless of accrual. | 1-year limit applies to preexisting claims; grace period runs from effective date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. State, 34 Kan. App. 2d 157 (2005) (created reasonable time for preexisting claims under new time limits; applies grace period)
- Tolen v. State, 285 Kan. 672 (2008) (approval of Hayes approach on retroactivity for time limits)
- Peters v. Kansas Parole Board, 22 Kan. App. 2d 175 (1996) (limitation period for habeas akin to retroactive grace period for amendments)
- Kaul, 269 Kan. 181 (2000) (treats procedural amendments as non-prejudicial when rights unaffected)
- Arnett, 290 Kan. 41 (2010) (statutory interpretation of procedural deadlines is a question of law)