State v. Parks, 417 P.3d 1070

In 1997 Phillip Parks pled no contest to premeditated first-degree murder; the plea agreement contemplated concurrent life sentences and jail-time credit, but the court later imposed a consecutive life sentence and denied credit. Parks’s direct appeal was affirmed in 1998.
In January 2015 (about 16+ years after final appeal), Parks filed a pro se “Motion to Set Aside a Void Judgment,” claiming his plea was not knowing and intelligent because he was not informed life imprisonment was the maximum, the plea agreement was invalid, and counsel was ineffective.
The district court appointed counsel, held a nonevidentiary hearing, and—at defense counsel’s urging—construed the pro se filing as a motion to withdraw plea under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3210.
Under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3210(e)(1) Parks needed to file within one year of the final appellate disposition (or show excusable neglect under subsection (e)(2) for a late filing). Parks did not allege excusable neglect to justify the 16-year delay.
The district court denied the motion as untimely; on appeal the State argued (1) invited error because defense counsel asked the court to treat the motion as a plea-withdrawal motion, and (2) the motion was time-barred even if construed under K.S.A. 60-1507.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, applying the invited error doctrine and holding the motion was procedurally barred for failure to show excusable neglect under 22-3210(e)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Parks)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the district court should have treated Parks’s pro se motion as a K.S.A. 60-1507 collateral attack rather than a 22-3210 motion to withdraw plea	Parks: court should construe motion as 60-1507 so time limits can be extended for manifest injustice and allow an evidentiary hearing	State: Parks (through counsel) asked the court to treat it as a 22-3210 motion; invited error; alternatively the motion is time-barred under either statute	Court: invited error doctrine applies; counsel invited the court to construe as 22-3210, so Parks cannot now complain; rejected conversion to 60-1507
Whether Parks’s motion was timely or excused despite being filed >1 year after final appeal under 22-3210(e)	Parks: (on appeal) sought relief under 60-1507 to avoid 22-3210 time bar	State: motion is untimely under 22-3210 and Parks made no showing of excusable neglect under (e)(2)	Court: motion untimely and procedurally barred because Parks failed to allege/explain excusable neglect

State v. Parks, 265 Kan. 644, 962 P.2d 486 (1998) (affirming Parks’s original conviction and sentence)
State v. Sasser, 305 Kan. 1231, 391 P.3d 698 (2017) (describing and applying the invited error doctrine)
State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 197 P.3d 337 (2008) (applying invited error where defendant requested a particular ruling and later challenged it)
State v. Moses, 296 Kan. 1126, 297 P.3d 1174 (2013) (holding the one-year limitation in amended 22-3210 applies to preexisting claims and time began when statute took effect)
State v. Smith, 303 Kan. 673, 366 P.3d 226 (2016) (motion to withdraw plea is procedurally barred when defendant fails to allege excusable neglect)