State v. Davisson
370 P.3d 423
Kan.2016Background
- In November 2000 Christopher Davisson pled guilty to felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery and received lengthy consecutive sentences.
- In May 2011 Davisson (while incarcerated) filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under K.S.A. 22-3210(d)(2), more than a year after the statutory grace period for preexisting claims expired (April 16, 2010).
- The district court bifurcated proceedings to first decide whether Davisson could show "excusable neglect" under K.S.A. 22-3210(e)(2) to justify the late filing; if so, the court would address the merits.
- Davisson testified he lacked knowledge of the plea-withdrawal option and the 1-year deadline, had limited prison law-library access, no attorney assistance, and prepared the motion after hearing other inmates discuss the topic.
- The district court found his ignorance and limited library access did not constitute excusable neglect, dismissed the motion as untimely, and declined to reach the merits. Davisson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davisson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davisson established excusable neglect to toll the 1-year filing deadline under K.S.A. 22-3210(e)(2) | Davisson: ignorance of the law and inadequate law-library access justify excusable neglect and warrant reaching the merits | State: ignorance of the law and ordinary library limitations do not constitute excusable neglect; Davisson had opportunities to inquire and prior criminal history shows familiarity with the system | Court held Davisson failed to prove excusable neglect; ignorance of the law is insufficient, so dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Szczygiel, 294 Kan. 642 (distinguishing standards for postsentence plea withdrawal review)
- State v. Beaman, 295 Kan. 853 (abuse of discretion framework)
- State v. Bricker, 292 Kan. 239 (movant bears burden to prove abuse of discretion in plea-withdrawal denial)
- State v. Moses, 296 Kan. 1126 (application of 1-year grace period for preexisting claims)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (excusable neglect is an elastic concept but ignorance of rules usually not excusable)
- State v. Woodward, 288 Kan. 297 (ignorance of a statutory right does not justify postsentence plea withdrawal)
- Montez v. Tonkawa Village Apartments, 215 Kan. 59 (excusable neglect implies more than ordinary inadvertence)