Date: 09-06-2024

Case Style:

State of Kansas v. Michael Wayne Still

Case Number: 126,407

Judge: Sidney R. Thomas

Court: District Court, Ford County, Kansas

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

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Dodge City Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Dodge City, Kansas drug possession criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

Charged with various drug-related crimes, Michael Wayne Still entered into a plea agreement with the State, part of which would result in the State recommending a departure from a prison sentence to probation-if Still complied with his bond conditions. Still agreed to plead no contest and the district court accepted his plea, but then he violated his bond conditions, releasing the State from its recommendation of probation. Even so, Still agreed to admit to the bond violations and the State gave a new recommendation of a durational departure to 20 months' imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court did not follow the parties' agreement and

2

sentenced Still to a lesser departure of 35 months' imprisonment. After the sentencing hearing, Still sought to withdraw his plea. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding that Still failed to show manifest injustice to warrant the withdrawal of his plea. Still timely appeals that ruling, but because we find no abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm its decision.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Given the issues raised in this appeal, a recitation of the facts underlying Still's criminal charges is unnecessary. Generally, in August 2022, the State charged him with multiple drug crimes. Although a written accord does not appear in the record before us, the parties announced the terms of a plea agreement during a scheduled arraignment hearing. As part of the plea, the State agreed that-in exchange for Still's plea of no contest to possession of methamphetamine and anticipating an A criminal history score- it would recommend a dispositional departure to probation from a standard sentence of 40 months' imprisonment. The State specified that if Still violated the conditions of his bond, failed to appear in court, or attempted to withdraw his plea offer, the State would be free to argue for the presumptive prison sentence. Still was required to receive an alcohol and drug evaluation as a condition of probation, the State recommended he be released on a $5,000 own recognizance (OR) bond, and he was to follow all conditions assessed by court services upon his release.

Still acknowledged during this hearing that the district court may or may not follow the parties' sentencing recommendations. The district court informed Still of his rights to have a trial by judge or jury, the State's burden to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and his right to appeal if he were convicted. Still answered, "Yes, sir" when asked if he understood that he could plead guilty or no contest, which terminated his presumption of innocence and right to a trial, and the district court would find him guilty of the charges. When asked if he had sufficient time to discuss his plea with his

3

attorney, he agreed he had and affirmatively stated he "waive[d] the jury [trial]" and pleaded no contest. Still agreed he was not under the influence of any medication, drugs, or alcohol; his mind was clear, and he understood what the court was doing.

The State recited the facts of the case, to which Still did not object, and the district court accepted Still's plea of no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine, found him guilty, and dismissed the remaining charges. The district court set sentencing for a later date and released Still on the OR bond with the conditions that he would not possess or consume alcohol or illegal drugs, obey all laws, and "stay out of trouble." Still verbally acknowledged he understood the terms of his release.

Outcome: Affirmed.

State v. Still, 126,407 (Kan. App. Sep 06, 2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: