State v. Smith, 312 Kan. 876

Background

Roger Smith was charged with second-degree murder after Sandra Berry was found fatally cut; he pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter after a detailed plea colloquy.
Before sentencing Smith filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea alleging his attorney failed to discuss defenses (voluntary intoxication, self-defense) and had not explained the plea’s effect on a pending pro se motion to dismiss.
At the hearing Smith’s counsel (appointed counsel Wagle) said he would argue the motion but then told the court he did not think Smith met statutory burdens to withdraw the plea and asserted he had discussed defenses with Smith—statements that contradicted Smith’s assertions.
The district court denied the plea-withdrawal motion on its merits (applying State v. Edgar factors) and proceeded to sentence Smith to 186 months after granting a negotiated downward durational departure.
On appeal the Kansas Court of Appeals held the district court abused its discretion by considering the merits without first appointing conflict-free counsel because counsel effectively advocated against Smith, creating an actual conflict; prejudice was presumed, so the court reversed, vacated the sentence, and remanded for a new hearing with new counsel.
Because the withdrawal motion was filed before sentencing, the court vacated the sentence and directed appointment of conflict-free counsel for the new hearing; the panel did not reach the merits of the original withdrawal claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by proceeding to decide a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw plea after Smith alleged a conflict of interest with counsel	Smith: Allegations that counsel failed to discuss defenses and contradicted him at the hearing put the court on notice of a potential conflict and required appointment of new counsel	State/Court: No actual conflict; counsel’s statements were permissible evaluative commentary and the court could address the motion’s merits	Court: Abused discretion—court should have appointed conflict-free counsel before ruling; remand for new hearing with new counsel
Whether counsel’s courtroom remarks created an actual conflict of interest	Smith: Counsel’s explicit statements that Smith hadn’t met statutory burdens and that counsel had discussed defenses amounted to advocating against Smith’s position	State: Attorneys may make truthful, evaluative statements; not all adverse comments create a conflict	Court: Counsel’s remarks effectively advocated against Smith and created an actual conflict; prejudice presumed
Whether the denial of the plea-withdrawal motion on Edgar factors should be affirmed	Smith: Merits were not reached on appeal due to conflict error	State: District court’s Edgar analysis supported denial	Court: Did not reach merits—error in failing to appoint new counsel required reversal and remand
Whether sentence must be vacated because motion to withdraw plea was filed pre-sentencing	Smith: A pre-sentencing withdrawal motion must be resolved before sentencing	State: (Agreed procedural effect noted)	Court: Vacated sentence and remanded; any later sentencing must follow guidance re prior conviction treatment (Boettger issue)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Prado, 299 Kan. 1251, 329 P.3d 473 (2014) (attorney advocacy against client during plea-withdrawal inquiry creates actual conflict)
State v. Pfannenstiel, 302 Kan. 747, 357 P.3d 877 (2015) (Sixth Amendment guarantees counsel unimpaired by conflicts)
State v. McDaniel, 306 Kan. 595, 395 P.3d 429 (2017) (district court has duty to inquire when notified of potential conflict)
State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 127 P.3d 986 (2006) (factors to evaluate plea-withdrawal motions)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (prejudice presumed when conflict causes constructive denial of counsel)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (an actual conflict necessarily adversely affects counsel’s performance)
State v. Vann, 280 Kan. 782, 127 P.3d 307 (2006) (remedy and remand framework when court fails to inquire about conflicts)
State v. Brown, 300 Kan. 565, 331 P.3d 797 (2014) (cited by defendant in alleging conflict post-mail incident)
State v. Boettger, 310 Kan. 800, 450 P.3d 805 (2019) (guidance on when prior convictions may be counted in criminal history)