State v. Cephas, 120557

Background

Defendant Roy Cephas Jr. pleaded no contest to robbery (severity level 5) pursuant to a plea agreement that reduced an original aggravated robbery (severity 3) charge; the agreement included the State's promise to recommend the low grid box number, not to file departure motions, jail credit, dismissal of three Riley County probation-revocation misdemeanors, and that any sentence in a Geary County case would run concurrent.
Cephas signed a waiver acknowledging that three person misdemeanors convert to one person felony for criminal-history scoring; at the plea hearing he affirmed he had reviewed the agreement, understood the likely criminal-history score (A), and entered the plea voluntarily.
After the plea but before sentencing, Cephas sought to withdraw, alleging ineffective/competency issues, that counsel withheld a video of the alleged victim’s police interview, that he was misled about co-defendant Williamson’s plea/testimony, that he was told he faced 24 months (rather than 12) on Riley County probation revocations, and that he did not understand his criminal-history ramifications.
At the plea-withdrawal hearing the court heard testimony from Cephas and his trial counsel (Brenda Jordan); the court credited Jordan’s account that discovery (including written summaries) was provided, that she warned Cephas about the three-misdemeanor conversion and the 12-month exposure, and that Cephas knew Williamson would testify and had a deal.
The trial court applied the Edgar factors and denied the motion to withdraw the plea for lack of good cause, then sentenced Cephas to 122 months’ imprisonment with 24 months’ postrelease supervision.
On appeal the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal: factual credibility findings favored counsel and Cephas failed to show he was misled, unaware of his criminal-history score, or deprived of competent counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion by denying plea-withdrawal motion	Cephas: plea involuntary / not understanding because counsel withheld video, concealed scope of Williamson's testimony, misrepresented consequences	State: Cephas affirmed voluntariness at plea, knew criminal-history score A, counsel provided discovery and warnings; trial court credited counsel	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Was plea "fairly and understandingly made" given alleged withholding of victim's video	Cephas: would have gone to trial if he saw video showing inconsistencies	State: counsel provided written reports and summaries; Cephas did not request the video; counsel testified video consistent with reports	Trial court credited counsel; Cephas’ testimony found not credible; claim fails
Was Cephas unaware of Williamson's plea deal/testimony such that plea was uninformed	Cephas: did not know what Williamson would say or benefit she received	State: counsel told Cephas Williamson would testify and the State would seek probation for her	Cephas admitted he knew Williamson would testify and knew of her deal; claim fails
Was Cephas misled about sentencing exposure (12 v. 24 months), criminal-history A, and Geary County benefits; competence of counsel	Cephas: counsel told him 24 months for Riley probation revocations, did not explain misdemeanor conversion to A, and Geary County benefit was unclear	State: counsel’s notes and testimony show she informed him of 12 months exposure and of three-misdemeanor conversion; counsel negotiated dismissal/termination of Geary matters; she provided competent representation	Trial court credited counsel; any errors were not prejudicial; Cephas received favorable outcomes; no good cause and counsel competent

Key Cases Cited

State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 127 P.3d 986 (2006) (articulates factors for pre-sentencing plea withdrawal/good-cause inquiry)
State v. Woodring, 309 Kan. 379, 435 P.3d 54 (2019) (appellate review of plea-withdrawal denial is abuse-of-discretion; do not reweigh credibility)
State v. Aguilar, 290 Kan. 506, 231 P.3d 563 (2010) (good-cause statutory standard is lower than manifest injustice; courts should not convert statutory standard into constitutional test)
State v. Kelly, 298 Kan. 965, 318 P.3d 987 (2014) (defense counsel must advise defendant of penalty range and choices to ensure plea is intelligent)
State v. Anderson, 291 Kan. 849, 249 P.3d 425 (2011) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility determinations)
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Burrell, 52 Kan. App. 2d 410, 367 P.3d 318 (2016) (defines "good cause" as a legally sufficient reason)