State v. Flores, 252 P.3d 570

Flores, certified as an adult, charged with premeditated first-degree murder (alternative felony murder), two counts of attempted first-degree murder, criminal damage to property, and firearm possession by a juvenile.
Flores pled no contest to one count of first-degree felony murder and one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter; district court imposed consecutive life and 34 months sentences.
On direct appeal, this court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over a challenge to consecutive sentencing (Flores I).
In 2004, Flores sought correction of an illegal sentence, arguing the juvenile-offenders provision precluded adult sentencing because attempted voluntary manslaughter was a lesser included offense (Flores II).
In 2009, Flores moved to withdraw his plea under K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 22-3210(d), arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or ineffective trial counsel; the district court denied the motion.
The amended information filed at the plea hearing charged felony murder based on the underlying attempted voluntary manslaughter of a different victim, making the underlying felony distinct from the homicide.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Flores plead to a nonexistent crime?	Flores contends the underlying felony (attempted voluntary manslaughter) was not an inherently dangerous felony and thus the plea was to a nonexistent crime.	State argues the plea was valid under existing law and, even if flawed, collateral attack is barred if the plea and sentence were beneficial and entered knowingly.	No; the underlying felony was distinct from the homicide, so Flores did not plead to a nonexistent crime.
May a district court deny withdrawal of a plea after sentencing when the plea was to a valid, but legally flawed, charge?	Flores seeks withdrawal to correct manifest injustice due to the alleged invalid plea.	State maintains the district court can deny withdrawal if due process occurred and the plea was beneficial.	The court properly denied withdrawal; the underlying charge was valid, and the denial was affirmed.
Is felony murder with an underlying attempted voluntary manslaughter a valid combination under the charging framework?	Flores argues the combination is invalid because attempted voluntary manslaughter is not inherently dangerous.	State contends the statutory framework allowed a felony murder charge with a distinct underlying felony when properly described.	Yes; the amended information showed the underlying felony was distinct from the homicide, making the charge valid.

State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 174 P.3d 407 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for withdrawal of plea after sentencing)
State v. Woodward, 288 Kan. 297, 202 P.3d 15 (2009) (abuse of discretion review for post-sentence plea withdrawal)
State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 127 P.3d 986 (2006) (correct understanding of the law in abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 201 P.3d 673 (2009) (abuse-of-discretion review includes legal standards application)
State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747, 234 P.3d 1 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion review includes law application accuracy)
State v. Flores II, 283 Kan. 380, 153 P.3d 506 (2007) (prior conclusion on illegal sentence involving juvenile-offender provision)
Spencer v. State, 24 Kan. App. 2d 125, 942 P.2d 646 (1997) (plea-binding if beneficial and knowingly entered)
Easterwood v. State, 273 Kan. 361, Syl., 44 P.3d 1209 (2002) (due-process and plea bargains binding when challenged later)
McPherson v. State, 38 Kan. App. 2d 276, 163 P.3d 1257 (2007) (collateral attack barred when bargain beneficial)