State v. Rodriguez, 494 P.3d 155

Background

Rodriguez pled no contest in 2010 to one count of child abuse after the State presented a factual basis tying the infant's injuries to nonaccidental shaking/impact; sentencing was set for March 10, 2010.
Before sentencing Rodriguez filed a presentence motion to withdraw his plea, presenting testimony from his girlfriend (F.Q.) that another caregiver had tossed the baby in the air and describing two other possible accidents; the district court denied withdrawal and sentenced him.
Rodriguez filed postsentence motions to withdraw plea which were denied; on first appeal this court affirmed postsentence denials but reversed the presentence denial and remanded for the district court to reconsider whether the newly discovered evidence (F.Q.'s testimony) showed good cause.
The mandate issued in April 2014, but no remand hearing occurred for nearly four years; Rodriguez moved in 2018 to dismiss for violation of due process based on the delay.
The district court denied the dismissal, held an evidentiary remand hearing in 2019 where Dr. Terra Frazier (child-abuse pediatrician) testified that the records showed both older and newer findings and that the timing could not be precisely fixed but the injuries were most consistent with shaking/impact and unlikely from the incidents F.Q. described.
The district court again denied Rodriguez's presentence motion to withdraw plea (and declined to reach his separate 2019 claim of insufficient factual basis as beyond the remand). Rodriguez appealed; the appellate court affirms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rodriguez)	Defendant's Argument (State/District Court)	Held
Whether the nearly 4‑year post-mandate delay required dismissal for due process violation	Delay violated rights; State should have implemented the mandate (noticed hearing, located him); remedy is vacatur and dismissal	No statutory or caselaw duty on State to find him; delay was not prejudicial; district court had responsibility too	Applied Barker factors: length/reason favor Rodriguez (negligence), failure to assert right weighs against him, but lack of any asserted prejudice defeats due process claim; denial of dismissal affirmed (though district court relied on wrong rationale)
Whether the remand-required presentence motion to withdraw plea (newly discovered evidence) established good cause	F.Q.'s testimony and Dr. Frazier's opinion show timing uncertain and a viable defense; good cause exists to withdraw plea	Frazier's testimony actually supported the original finding that the described prior incidents were unlikely to cause the injury; court found F.Q. not credible	Abuse-of-discretion review: district court's credibility and factual findings are supported by the record; Frazier did not establish the incidents caused the injury; denial of motion affirmed
Whether the district court erred by refusing to consider Rodriguez's 2019 motion claiming insufficient factual basis for the plea (beyond remand scope)	The 2019 motion was not moot and should be considered as part of presentence issues; mandate did not bar it	The remand was limited to newly discovered evidence; the insufficient‑factual‑basis claim was a new issue beyond the mandate and, because sentence was not vacated, would be a postsentence motion	Court finds the 2019 claim was beyond the specific scope of the remand; refusal to reach it was proper (and denial can be affirmed on correct alternative grounds); Rodriguez may still pursue a postsentence motion under proper rules

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial/delay claims)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (test for prejudice and intentional delay in pre-accusation delay cases)
State v. Prater, 31 Kan. App. 2d 388 (Kan. App. 2003) (applied Marion test to post-remand delay)
State v. Soto, 310 Kan. 242 (Kan. 2019) (mandate rule permits addressing late-breaking issues on remand)
State v. Smith, 312 Kan. 876 (Kan. 2021) (mandate rule limits district court to the specific remand directive when issues were deliberately narrowed)
State v. Owens, 310 Kan. 865 (Kan. 2019) (discussing reasons-weighting from Barker)
State v. Barber, 313 Kan. 55 (Kan. 2021) (presentence motion-to-withdraw-plea good-cause factors)
State v. Overman, 301 Kan. 704 (Kan. 2015) (correct-result rule: affirm if correct even on wrong grounds)