State v. Kenney, 323 P.3d 1288

Nathaniel Kenney was charged with 13 felonies for an alleged home invasion; two counts remained after plea bargaining (aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery).
Court-appointed counsel Jeffrey Leiker sought to withdraw shortly before trial after deteriorating communication and repeated client complaints; the district court denied the motion twice.
At a pretrial recess Kenney entered no-contest pleas to two counts in exchange for dismissal of 11 other felonies and a joint durational departure request (plea purportedly reserved some appeal rights).
Both Leiker and the district judge told Kenney he could reserve certain appeals post-plea; the judge reinforced the misimpression that some pre-plea rulings could still be appealed.
Kenney filed a pro se presentencing motion to withdraw his pleas, arguing he had been misinformed about the rights he was surrendering; the district court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding Kenney may withdraw his pleas and must be appointed substitute counsel before proceedings continue.

Issue	Kenney's Argument	State/Leiker's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was denied effective representation/should have had substitute counsel at plea-withdrawal hearing	Leiker had a conflict / gave faulty legal advice; substitute counsel was required	No explicit claim of deficient counsel at withdrawal; motion unpersuasive	Court: Leiker and judge misadvised Kenney; substitute counsel should be appointed and plea withdrawal permitted
Whether defendant could reserve appeal of pre-plea motions after pleading no contest	Kenney relied on counsel/judge statements that he could appeal certain pre-plea rulings	Plea agreement and statements permitted reservation	Court: Legal reservation was impossible; misstatements constituted good cause to withdraw plea
Standard for reviewing denial of presentencing motion to withdraw plea	Kenney: district court abused discretion by failing to consider counsel competence and legal errors	State: denial proper under abuse-of-discretion standard	Court: abuse of discretion—judge erred as a matter of law and failed to consider counsel competence
Whether misinformation during plea negotiations can justify withdrawal under K.S.A. 22-3602(a)	Misinformation about law deprived Kenney of substantial rights; constitutes good cause	Plea colloquy and counsel statements sufficed to show understanding	Court: misinformation—especially when reinforced by judge—gives good cause to withdraw plea

State v. Ebaben, 294 Kan. 807 (2012) (standard of review for plea-withdrawal motions)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (abuse of discretion defined)
State v. Kelly, 291 Kan. 868 (2011) (competence of counsel is a factor when evaluating plea-withdrawal motions)