Opinion ID: 2571715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: ground two

Text: As previously stated, ground two was never presented to the trial court as a basis for withdrawal of the pleas (or for any other purpose). K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-3210 provides in pertinent part: (a) Before or during trial a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may be accepted when: (1) The defendant or counsel for the defendant enters such plea in open court; and (2) in felony cases the court has informed the defendant of the consequences of the plea, including the specific sentencing guidelines level of any crime committed on or after July 1, 1993, and of the maximum penalty provided by law which may be imposed upon acceptance of such plea; and (3) in felony cases the court has addressed the defendant personally and determined that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea; and (4) the court is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea. (b) In felony cases the defendant must appear and plead personally and a verbatim record of all proceedings at the plea and entry of judgment thereon shall be made. (Emphasis supplied.) The statute required that the trial court advise defendant of the maximum penalty which could be imposed before accepting his guilty pleas. This the trial court did not do. Specifically, the exchange was as follows: THE COURT: All right. What you propose to plea guilty to are two counts of first degree murder, off grid person felonies. Do you understand that for each count, the maximum possible punishment could be anywhere up to 25 years in prison with no parole and THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: and/or a fine of up to $500,000? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. The sentence for first-degree premeditated murder herein was life on each count. This is the sentence later imposed on each count, to be served concurrently, with no possibility of parole for 25 years. Based upon this misstatement, defendant asks us to hold that the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his pleas constituted an abuse of judicial discretion. This is not an abuse of discretion issue, as this ground for withdrawal was not presented to the trial court. A court cannot abuse judicial discretion on a matter that was never before it. We must determine if this issue is before us. As a general rule, an issue not presented to the lower court will not be considered on appeal. State v. Alderson, 260 Kan. 445, Syl. ¶ 7, 922 P.2d 435 (1996). Defendant contends the misstatement was violative of his right to due process. In State v. Shears, 260 Kan. 823, 837, 925 P.2d 1136 (1996), we held: [W]hen constitutional grounds are asserted for the first time on appeal, they are not properly before [this court] for review. However, this court has recognized three exceptions to the general rule: (1) The newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the claim is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason. See State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18, 30-31, 11 P.3d 1147 (2000) (citing Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners, 200 Kan. 74, 80-81, 434 P.2d 858 [1967]), cert. denied 532 U.S. 932 (2001). The threshold question in this case is whether consideration of the belated claim of error is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights. Certainly the failure to strictly comply with the requirements of K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-3210 does not automatically elevate the matter into coming within this exception to the general rule. See Shaw, 259 Kan. at 14-15. Can defendant bring this belated claim of error within the exception? Let us examine the relevant facts. Defendant was 14 years old at the time of the offense. He was 16 years old when his guilty pleas were entered. He was before the court on a complaint charging seven felonies and one misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he still faced two premeditated first-degree murder charges. Defendant had no prior record. He wanted to withdraw his pleas and wrote a letter to the court which became the sole basis of his motion to withdraw. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, defendant was not called upon to testify. All that was before the court in support of the motion were the statements of defense counsel which essentially rebutted the grounds defendant asserted, all of which fall in the general category of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant had been advised by the court that the maximum penalty that could be imposed on each count was anywhere up to 25 years in prison with no parole. There was no reason for defendant to complain about that statement. It was incorrect but favorable to defendant. Under the unique circumstances herein, we conclude that consideration of defendant's belated claim that he should be permitted to withdraw his pleas falls within the exception to the general rule precluding consideration of belated claims of error. As this is a determination that consideration is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights, it follows that, on consideration, we must find reversible error occurred, as there is no dispute but that the error occurred. Put another way, if the belated claim of error is uncontroverted and is so serious, based on all the relevant facts, to come within the high requirements of the exception, then the error is reversible error. We therefore reverse and remand the case to the district court with directions to permit the defendant to withdraw his pleas and for further proceedings as though the guilty pleas had not occurred. Reversed and remanded with instructions.