State v. Szczygiel
279 P.3d 700
Kan.2012Background
- Szczygiel was charged in 1980 with rape, burglary, and aggravated kidnapping, and pled guilty to kidnapping with intent to facilitate flight, sentenced to 5 years to life.
- Plea petition stated the terms: reduce charges to kidnapping under K.S.A. 21-3420; Szczygiel verified he entered the plea knowingly and without threats or promises.
- Judgment journal entry found the plea was freely and voluntarily entered.
- In 2010, Szczygiel moved to withdraw his plea and to correct an illegal sentence; district court denied after a nonevidentiary hearing.
- On appeal, this court has jurisdiction under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-3601(b)(3) and reviews for abuse of discretion on post-sentencing withdrawal; and reviews legality of sentence de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of post-plea withdrawal | Szczygiel timely under 1-year grace period. | District court correctly found untimely under 22-3210(e)(1). | Motion timely within grace period; timely withdrawal affirmed for merits review. |
| Breach of plea agreement | Oral agreement not to label him a sex offender; breach warrants withdrawal. | Written plea agreement contains no such promise. | No breach; no ground to withdraw plea. |
| Disclosure of exculpatory materials before plea | Victim affidavit, medical records, and interview transcript should have been disclosed. | No due process or discovery violations pre-plea; records not required to be disclosed. | No reversible error; pre-plea disclosure not required for impeachment materials; statutory theories unpersuasive. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to request/discover potentially exculpatory evidence. | No prejudice; plea would have been made regardless given trial risks. | No prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claim fails. |
| Illegal sentence – K.S.A. 21-4606(2) factors | Perjured testimony affected harm calculation for life term. | Challenge lacks flaw in conformity to statute; not the proper channel. | Sentence legality not established; petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Flores, 292 Kan. 257 (2011) (abuse of discretion standard for postsentence withdrawal)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (abuse of discretion standard; postconviction relief)
- State v. Benavides, 46 Kan. App. 2d 563 (2011) (grace period for preexisting claims under 22-3210)
- Hayes v. State, 34 Kan. App. 2d 157 (2005) (1-year grace period analogue from 60-1507 jurisprudence)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (no pre-plea duty to disclose impeachment evidence)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standard for prejudice in ineffective assistance in plea bargains)
- Sanchez-Cazares v. Gonzales, 276 Kan. 451 (2003) (prejudice standard in ineffective assistance in pleas)
- LaBelle v. State, 290 Kan. 529 (2010) (legal-sentencing-illegality review)