Date: 09-06-2024

Case Style:

State of Kansas v. Lee Lunsford, Jr.

Case Number: 126,783

Judge: John J. Bryant

Court: District Court, Atchison County, Kansas

Plaintiff's Attorney: Atkhison County Kansas District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Atchison Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Atchison, Kansas drug trafficking charge criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

Lunsford was charged with several drug and traffic charges. After plea negotiations with the State, Lunsford pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine, a severity level 5 drug felony. In exchange, the State dismissed all remaining charges. The parties told the court that Lunsford intended to ask for a dispositional departure sentence at sentencing and the State would stand silent on his departure request.

At the plea hearing, the district court placed Lunsford under oath to ask whether his plea was being made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. During this colloquy, the district court discussed the possible consequences of Lunsford's guilty plea:

"THE COURT: You understand that a Level 5 Drug Felony subjects you to a sentence of up to 42 months in the Kansas Department of Corrections?

"DEFENDANT: Yeah.

"THE COURT: And the fine could be up to $100,000.00 dollars.

"DEFENDANT: Yes."

Then, the district court asked Lunsford whether he had discussed his rights and consequences of the plea with his attorney:

"THE COURT: Have you gone over your trial rights with your attorney?

"DEFENDANT: Yes.

"THE COURT: And you are waiving those rights here today?

"DEFENDANT: Yeah."

Next, the district court discussed the various trial and collateral rights that Lunsford would be waiving by entering a plea. The district court then asked Lunsford if he had any questions for his attorney before proceeding and inquired about Lunsford's understanding of the plea and his mental state:

"THE COURT: You believe that you do understand the plea agreement as set forth on the record?

"DEFENDANT: Yes.

"THE COURT: Do you think you've had enough time to talk to Mr. Herbster about the plea in the case?

"DEFENDANT: Yes.

"THE COURT: Alright. Has anybody promised you anything that has not been made a part of the record to get you to take this plea?

"DEFENDANT: No.

"THE COURT: Has anybody threatened or coerced you take this plea?

"DEFENDANT: No.

"THE COURT: Have you ever been confined to an institution or adjudicated mentally incompetent?

"DEFENDANT: No.

"THE COURT: Are you under a doctor's care, taking any medications or any drugs or alcohol that cause you to have any difficulty understanding what we we're doing today?

"DEFENDANT: No."

To supply a factual basis for the plea, the State summarized the alleged facts supporting a conviction for possession of methamphetamine:

"If this had gone to a contested hearing the State would present evidence that law enforcement conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle in which the defendant was an occupant on June 2, 2020. During the course of . . . [the] traffic investigation there was a drug dog that was ran around the vehicle. In the meantime Captain Travis Wright was speaking with the defendant, I believe outside the vehicle. The defendant admitted that he was on parole, Captain Wright asked him if he had anything on his person and he replied yes and asked if he would be allowed to just throw it away. After a subsequent search it was determined that there was methamphetamine on the defendant's person. These actions all occurred in Atchison County."

Lunsford did not challenge the factual basis for his plea. When the court asked, "Do you understand that a guilty plea admits that you did what the State says you did?" Lunsford replied in the affirmative. Before asking Lunsford to enter a plea, the district court asked if he had any other questions; Lunsford replied that he did not. Lunsford pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, which the district court accepted and found that Lunsford understood his rights; that Lunsford went over those rights with his attorney; and that Lunsford's plea was knowingly and voluntarily made and "not as a result of threats or coercion or any other promises."

Later at the sentencing hearing, Lunsford moved for a downward dispositional departure based on his injuries stemming from an automobile accident. Lunsford's lawyer argued that Lunsford suffered debilitating injuries which caused him to be hospitalized. Lunsford also had trouble walking on his own and used a wheelchair right after the accident and later a walker. Because of these injuries, Lunsford argued that prison would not be ideal and that he was amenable to probation. To support his claim, Lunsford pointed to his regular reporting to probation and clean urinary analyses.
State v. Lunsford, 126,783 (Kan. App. Sep 06, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed.

State v. Lunsford, 126,783 (Kan. App. Sep 06, 2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: