State v. Stephens, 265 P.3d 574

State and Stephens entered a plea agreement: dismiss criminal threat, convert felony marijuana sale to misdemeanor, Stephens pleads guilty to reduced misdemeanor drug charge and felony possession of drug paraphernalia.
Court informed Stephens of maximum sentences; Stephens acknowledged understanding presumptive sentence based on crime severity and criminal history and that the court could depart from the plea; no promises beyond statements in open court.
Presentence investigation revealed undisclosed Colorado misdemeanors converting to felony for sentencing, changing Stephens’ history score from H to D, prompting continued sentencing to allow response.
Stephens moved for downward durational departure and probation; court denied, sentencing concurrently 24 months for paraphernalia and 6 months for marijuana possession.
Stephens moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and that counsel failed to uncover the true criminal history; he asserted he would not have pled if he knew the sentence could be incarceration.
At the withdrawal hearing, Stephens testified counsel promised probation and misrepresented the sentence; defense acknowledged reliance on Stephens’ criminal history but argued no duty to investigate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Padilla extends to sentencing and historical record disclosure.	Stephens argues Padilla required investigation of his history for accurate advice.	Stephens' counsel had no duty to investigate nationwide history; Padilla is immigration-specific.	Padilla not extended; no duty to uncover past crimes for sentencing.
Whether counsel's alleged failure to uncover Colorado history constitutes ineffective assistance at plea.	Counsel should have known and informed, affecting plea decision.	Counsel informed range of penalties; client presumed to know his own history.	No ineffective assistance; information provided was sufficient.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying withdrawal of the plea.	New information and mistake warranted withdrawal.	Court properly denied withdrawal; no showing of valid cause to set aside plea.	District court did not abuse discretion; plea withdrawal denied.

State v. Plotner, 290 Kan. 774 (2010) (abuse of discretion standard for withdrawal of plea)
State v. Sanchez-Cazares, 276 Kan. 451 (2003) (ineffective assistance standard; de novo review of mixed questions)
Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 (1985) (analysis of performance and prejudice under Strickland)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (duty to inform about immigration consequences; not extended to sentencing)
State v. Solomon, 257 Kan. 212 (1995) (counsel reasonably informs defendant of penalty range)
Porter v. State, 37 Kan. App. 2d 220 (2007) (defendant presumed to know his own criminal history)