State v. Key
298 Kan. 315
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Sean Aaron Key was charged with felony DUI under K.S.A. 8-1567 based on two prior misdemeanor DUI convictions (Feb. 2007 and July 1995).
- Key alleged his attorney entered an unauthorized guilty plea in the Feb. 2007 misdemeanor (07-CR-03) and moved to dismiss or have the charge amended; the district court denied relief as untimely and declined a collateral attack on the prior conviction.
- Key pled guilty or nolo contendere to the felony DUI, objected at sentencing to use of the 2007 conviction for enhancement, and was sentenced to 1 year (sentence suspended pending appeal).
- The Court of Appeals dismissed Key’s direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction under K.S.A. 22-3602(a), reasoning Key could not attack the conviction after pleading guilty without first moving to withdraw the plea.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, held Key’s guilty plea bars appellate attack on conviction but does not strip appellate jurisdiction to review sentence issues, and remanded for merits consideration of whether the 2007 misdemeanor could be excluded from sentencing because the plea was unauthorized.
Issues
| Issue | Keyes' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review challenges to classification (felony vs misdemeanor) after guilty plea | Key: prior conviction not an element; classification/severity is for sentencing so appealable | State: guilty plea waives direct appeal of conviction/classification under K.S.A. 22-3602(a) | Plea bars direct attack on conviction/classification absent unsuccessful motion to withdraw plea; no appellate jurisdiction over conviction itself |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review sentencing challenge based on invalid prior misdemeanor | Key: preserved objections; sentencing review available despite plea | State: plea deprives appellate jurisdiction over related issues | Appellate jurisdiction exists for sentence review; challenge to use of prior conviction at sentencing is reviewable |
| Whether an unauthorized prior guilty plea (uncounseled/unauthorized) can be excluded from criminal history for enhancement | Key: prior plea was unauthorized and therefore cannot be used to enhance | State: prior conviction stands unless overturned in collateral proceeding | Court remanded to consider merits under precedents (Elliott/Neal/Delacruz) and whether State met preponderance to prove criminal history |
| Procedural requirement to preserve classification challenge | Key: timely objections at prelim and sentencing suffice | State: must move to withdraw plea or go to trial to preserve classification challenge on appeal | Court explained best practices: challenge at preliminary hearing or timely motion to dismiss; if pleading, must file unsuccessful motion to withdraw to preserve conviction attack; otherwise preserve sentencing objection on record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Seems, 277 Kan. 303 (2004) (probable cause at preliminary hearing requires State to offer prior misdemeanors when charging felony DUI)
- State v. Elliott, 281 Kan. 583 (2006) (prior misdemeanor DUI may be challenged when used to enhance sentence)
- State v. Neal, 292 Kan. 625 (2011) (uncounseled misdemeanor that resulted in incarceration cannot be included in criminal history)
- State v. Delacruz, 258 Kan. 129 (1995) (allowing attacks on earlier un‑counseled misdemeanors used for enhancement)
- State v. Chamberlain, 280 Kan. 241 (2005) (prior DUI is a sentencing enhancement factor, not an element)
- State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 862 (2011) (guilty plea does not deprive appellate court of jurisdiction to review sentence)
- State v. Schow, 287 Kan. 529 (2008) (State bears burden by preponderance to prove criminal history at sentencing)