State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041

Godfrey pled guilty to first-degree felony murder and aggravated battery; plea agreement included a provision recommending placement at Larned State Hospital and concurrent sentences.
At the first scheduled sentencing Godfrey requested and received a continuance saying he intended to move to withdraw his plea; no motion was ever filed.
At the second sentencing the State asked the court to recommend Larned placement; defense counsel explained there had been a misunderstanding about whether placement was "in lieu of sentencing" (K.S.A. 22-3430) or merely a recommendation to the DOC.
Godfrey’s counsel ultimately acknowledged the disagreement but told the court Godfrey wished to proceed with sentencing and accepted the State’s interpretation.
The district court sentenced Godfrey and recommended that the Secretary of Corrections consider transfer to Larned, consistent with the parties’ agreement as the court understood it.
On appeal Godfrey argued the State breached the plea agreement by not seeking commitment to Larned in lieu of sentencing; the Court of Appeals declined to reach the merits because Godfrey failed to preserve the claim by contemporaneous objection or by moving to withdraw the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State breached the plea agreement by not seeking commitment to Larned in lieu of sentencing	Godfrey: agreement was ambiguous and should be interpreted to require the State to move for commitment to Larned under K.S.A. 22-3430	State: it only agreed to recommend Larned placement to the DOC; no breach occurred and defense accepted that interpretation at sentencing	The claim is unpreserved; court declined to address the merits because Godfrey failed to object or move to withdraw the plea and did not invoke an exception allowing first-time appellate review

State v. Urista, 296 Kan. 576 (discussing circumstances in which post-plea claims may be considered if contemporaneous objection was lodged)
State v. Peterson, 296 Kan. 563 (same)
State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 (general rule that constitutional claims not raised below cannot be raised first on appeal)
State v. Spotts, 288 Kan. 650 (three exceptions allowing appellate consideration of unpreserved constitutional issues)
State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485 (application of Spotts exceptions)
State v. Williams, 298 Kan. 1075 (importance of complying with briefing rules and preservation requirements; stricter enforcement of Rule 6.02)
State v. Johnson, 293 Kan. 959 (prior application denying appellate review of unpreserved issues)