485 P.3d 174
Kan.2021Background
- Lee Davis IV was charged with first-degree murder and child abuse; he pled no contest to amended charges of second-degree murder and child abuse pursuant to a plea agreement in April 2013.
- The plea agreement included a handwritten waiver of the right to appeal convictions and sentences if within the presumptive guidelines; Davis confirmed at the plea hearing he understood and had reviewed the agreement.
- Davis was scored a D for criminal history and received consecutive sentences (200 months for murder; 34 months for child abuse).
- More than three years later Davis filed a pro se K.S.A. 60-1507 motion; counsel later moved (in July 2017) to withdraw his plea as untimely and asserted excusable neglect because Davis did not receive the plea transcript until 2017 and believed the waiver barred collateral attacks.
- The district court denied the untimely motion on its merits (finding no manifest injustice), the Court of Appeals affirmed but said manifest injustice was a condition precedent to excusable neglect, and the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does K.S.A. 22-3210(e)(1)'s one-year limit apply when defendant did not file a direct appeal? | Statutory language starts the one-year clock when the time to appeal expires; it applies even if no appeal was filed. | The clock never started because Davis never filed a direct appeal; thus the one-year limit should not bar his motion. | The one-year limit applies from the expiration of the appeal period; Davis filed well after that and his motion was untimely. |
| What is the relationship between excusable neglect (procedural) and manifest injustice (substantive)? | (as applied below) manifest injustice is necessary before finding excusable neglect. | Challenge to the Court of Appeals' conclusion that manifest injustice is a condition precedent to excusable neglect. | Excusable neglect is the procedural threshold; manifest injustice is the substantive standard to grant withdrawal—Court of Appeals' ordering was legally incorrect but harmless here. |
| Did the district court need to make explicit findings on excusable neglect? | District court adequately addressed the motion and could resolve on merits without specific excusable-neglect findings. | District court failed to explicitly find excusable neglect, which matters for timeliness analysis. | Lack of explicit excusable-neglect findings was harmless because the district court denied the motion on the merits and that merits ruling was not challenged. |
| Did Davis show manifest injustice sufficient to withdraw the plea? | Waiver and competent counsel meant no manifest injustice; motion lacked merit. | Davis argued he lacked access to transcript and misunderstood waiver scope. | District court rejected manifest injustice; Davis did not contest that merits ruling on appeal, so it stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scaife v. State, 51 Kan. App. 2d 577 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015) (discusses appellate timing and perfection of appeals)
- State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 605 (Kan. 2016) (procedural bars render untimely motions ineligible for substantive review when excusable neglect not shown)
- State v. Arnett, 307 Kan. 648 (Kan. 2018) (issues not briefed on appeal are deemed waived)