State v. Wyatt, 120489

Wyatt and an accomplice attempted a violent carjacking in Sept. 2016; the accomplice was killed and Wyatt was later charged with multiple felonies including attempted first-degree murder (later amended).
Wyatt retained counsel; after a preliminary hearing and plea negotiations, he agreed to plead guilty to attempted intentional second-degree murder and related counts with a joint recommendation of a controlling 180‑month prison sentence.
At the plea hearing Wyatt acknowledged the factual basis, was advised of rights and possible sentences, and stated he had adequate time with and was satisfied with his retained lawyer. The court accepted the pleas and scheduled sentencing.
Before sentencing Wyatt dismissed his retained lawyer, took appointed counsel, then moved pro se (and later through newly appointed counsel) to withdraw his pleas, arguing his retained lawyer "gave up" and he didn’t know he could obtain appointed counsel.
After a hearing in which the court credited the plea‑colloquy and counsel’s testimony about competent representation and negotiation of a better deal, the district court denied the motion to withdraw plea and later sentenced Wyatt per the agreement.
On appeal the Kansas Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, finding substantial support for the district court’s credibility findings and that Wyatt failed to show lackluster representation or prejudice (i.e., he would have gone to trial).

Issue	Wyatt's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Wyatt's pre‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas	Wyatt said his retained lawyer had "given up," advised him to accept a plea, and he didn’t know he could obtain appointed counsel to replace retained counsel, so the plea was not voluntary/knowing	Counsel capably represented Wyatt (rejected earlier worse offers, secured charge reduction and favorable recommendation); plea colloquy showed Wyatt understood rights; Wyatt showed no prejudice or credible claim he would have gone to trial	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Whether Wyatt received inadequate ("lackluster") representation supporting plea withdrawal	Counsel’s negative assessment of the case and advice to accept a plea amounted to deficient advocacy that coerced the plea	Candid, negative case assessments are permissible; counsel’s actions (discovery production, negotiations, rejecting worse offers) show competent advocacy	Court found counsel competent; negative but candid advice insufficient to justify withdrawal
Whether Wyatt’s plea was knowing and voluntary	Wyatt alleged he pled because he believed he could not get appointed replacement counsel and felt constrained	Plea hearing record: Wyatt acknowledged understanding, expressed satisfaction with counsel, and admitted factual basis	Court credited plea‑colloquy and testimony; plea found knowing and voluntary

State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30 (2006) (establishes Edgar factors for evaluating pre‑sentence plea withdrawal)
State v. Garcia, 295 Kan. 53 (2012) (district court not confined to Edgar factors; factors are benchmark)
State v. White, 289 Kan. 279 (2009) (pre‑sentence plea withdrawal reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Schaefer, 305 Kan. 581 (2016) ("lackluster advocacy" standard for plea‑withdrawal adequacy of counsel)
State v. Richardson, 307 Kan. 2 (2017) (defendant must show prejudice—would have gone to trial—to justify withdrawal)
State v. Anderson, 291 Kan. 849 (2013) (appellate courts defer to district court credibility findings)