State v. Holle

1
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 114,393

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

RYAN GARRETT HOLLE,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Riley District Court; MERYL D. WILSON, judge. Opinion filed August 19, 2016.
Affirmed.

Ryan Eddinger, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Barry K. Disney, assistant county attorney, Barry R. Wilkerson, county attorney, and Derek
Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before GARDNER, P.J., BUSER and STANDRIDGE, JJ.

Per Curiam: Ryan Garrett Holle appeals the district court's decision to deny his
presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of battery against a county
correctional officer. Holle argues he sufficiently established the good cause necessary to
withdraw his plea. Because Holle failed to establish good cause to withdraw his plea, we
affirm the decision of the district court.



2
FACTS

In 2014, the State charged Holle with three counts of battery against a county
correctional officer. On the day his case was scheduled for jury trial, Holle entered into a
plea agreement with the State. He signed a written document entitled Defendant's
Acknowledgment of Rights and Entry of Plea, as well as a written plea agreement. The
plea agreement expressly provided that the sentencing range for the three counts of
battery against a county correctional officer was imprisonment for 31 to 136 months. The
plea agreement also provided, however, that the State agreed to dismiss two of the three
battery charges with prejudice and to join Holle's request for a downward durational
departure prison sentence of 36 months on the remaining count of battery against a
county correctional officer.

The parties appeared at a plea hearing that same day. At the hearing, Holle
confirmed that he had read and understood all of the information in the Defendant's
Acknowledgment of Rights and Entry of Plea and the plea agreement, that he had
discussed the contents of these documents with his attorney, and that his attorney had
answered any questions about the documents to his satisfaction. Holle further stated that
he signed the documents freely and voluntarily, without threat or coercion. After
engaging in a colloquy with Holle, the district court judge found Holle understood his
rights and the consequences of his plea. As such, the district court accepted Holle's guilty
plea to one count of battery against a county correctional officer.

Holle later refused to appear at the scheduled sentencing hearing. Defense counsel
advised the district court that Holle wanted to withdraw his plea. Based on the
conversation defense counsel had with Holle, counsel moved the court to have Holle
evaluated for competency to stand trial. The court ordered a competency evaluation and
continued sentencing pending the results. Nevertheless, the district court judge noted his
belief that Holle had "clearly understood" what was taking place at the plea hearing.
3
Pawnee Mental Health Services evaluated Holle's competency to stand trial. After
reviewing the report submitted by Pawnee Mental Health Services, the district court
found Holle competent as a matter of law. At this hearing, Holle verbally moved to
withdraw his guilty plea. In support of his motion, Holle told the court his counsel was
ineffective at the time he entered his plea of guilty. More specifically, Holle said he did
not understand the full extent of the maximum presumptive sentence that he was facing
as compared to the sentence recommended by the plea agreement. Holle felt that the
difference between the 36-month plea offer and a potential 120-month sentence did not
"make much of a difference in [his] life." Holle concluded by asking the court to appoint
a new attorney to represent him for purposes of arguing his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea. The court granted Holle's request for a new attorney and scheduled a hearing on
Holle's motion to withdraw his plea.

At the hearing, Holle's new counsel informed the district court that he had met
with Holle on multiple occasions and they had discussed the pros and cons of the plea
agreement and the possible outcomes in the event Holle went forward with a jury trial.
Counsel told the court that Holle appeared to understand and appreciate the significant
impact withdrawing his plea could have on his sentence but Holle insisted he still wanted
to do so. Holle also addressed the court, confirming he had discussed the pros and cons of
withdrawing his plea with counsel. Holle claimed that he wanted to withdraw his plea
because he felt he could have "possibly been able to beat the case" and because it would
be easier to appeal from a jury verdict than from a plea. Holle again told the court that at
the time he entered his plea, he did not have a full understanding of the length of the
potential sentence compared to the amount of time he had already served. Holle
confirmed with the court his understanding that he would face a sentence of up to 120
months if he went to trial, versus the approximately 24 months remaining on his 36-
month sentence.

4
The State opposed Holle's motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that he had failed
to show good cause to do so. The State specifically reminded the district court that a jury
already had been chosen and was ready to proceed with trial at the time Holle suddenly
decided he wanted to plead guilty in exchange for dismissal of two of the counts against
him.

Applying the test set forth in State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36, 127 P.3d 986
(2006), the district court ultimately held that Holle failed to establish good cause to
withdraw his plea. Considering each Edgar factor, the court first determined that Holle
was represented by competent counsel who was "aggressive" in his efforts. Additionally,
the court found that Holle was not misled, coerced, mistreated, or unfairly taken
advantage of. The district court noted that Holle told the court at the plea hearing that his
plea was not the result of coercion or threats, that a jury had been ready to proceed with
trial when Holle entered into his plea, and that the State had agreed to a "significant"
departure sentence. Finally, the judge determined that Holle's plea was fairly and
understandingly made, stating "there was no doubt in my mind that Mr. Holle had a
sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances of his case and of the likely
consequences [of his plea]."

Consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, the district court sentenced Holle
to 36 months in prison with a postrelease supervision term of 24 months. Holle timely
appeals.

ANALYSIS

In his sole issue on appeal, Holle challenges the district court's decision denying
his motion to withdraw his plea.

5
Under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3210(d)(1) a guilty or no-contest plea may be
withdrawn "for good cause shown and within the discretion of the court" at any time
before the sentence is adjudged. We will not disturb a district court's decision to deny a
defendant's presentence motion to withdraw a plea unless the defendant establishes that
the district court abused its discretion. State v. Kenney, 299 Kan. 389, 393, 323 P.3d 1288
(2014). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if the action (1) is arbitrary,
fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) is based on an error of law; or (3) is based on an error of
fact. State v. Mosher, 299 Kan. 1, 3, 319 P.3d 1253 (2014). The party claiming an abuse
of judicial discretion bears the burden of establishing the abuse. State v. Rojas-
Marceleno, 295 Kan. 525, 531, 285 P.3d 361 (2012).

When determining whether good cause has been shown, Kansas courts consider
the following factors, also referred to as the Edgar factors: "(1) whether the defendant
was represented by competent counsel; (2) whether the defendant was misled, coerced,
mistreated, or unfairly taken advantage of; and (3) whether the plea was fairly and
understandingly made." State v. Fritz, 299 Kan. 153, 154, 321 P.3d 763 (2014). These
factors should not be applied mechanically and to the exclusion of other factors. 299 Kan.
at 154.

In support of his argument, Holle does not allege that his counsel was incompetent
or that he was misled, coerced, mistreated, or unfairly taken advantage of when he
entered his plea. Rather, Holle argues that his plea was not voluntary because he did not
understand the maximum sentence he faced upon a conviction at trial. Holle claims he
would not have pled guilty and would have taken his chances with a jury if he had known
that he would only be subject to a maximum sentence of 10 years. Holle contends that he
was willing to risk serving a longer sentence because he had a strong case.

But Holle's argument is contrary to the record. "[A] defendant's waiver of rights in
conjunction with a guilty plea must be a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent act
6
performed with sufficient knowledge of the relevant circumstances and likely
consequences." State v. Horn, 291 Kan. 1, 11, 238 P.3d 238 (2010). With respect to
whether Holle's plea was fairly and understandingly made, the district court judge stated
there was "no doubt in my mind that Mr. Holle had a sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances of his case and of the likely consequences." The record supports the
district court's finding. Before entering his plea, Holle signed an Acknowledgment of
Rights and Entry of Plea document, which clearly provided that the sentencing range for
the crime of battery against a correctional officer was 31 to 136 months. The document
further provided that Holle had read and understood its contents. At the plea hearing,
Holle agreed that he had read and understood all of the information in the
Acknowledgment of Rights and Entry of Plea document, that he had discussed its
contents with his attorney, and that his attorney had answered any questions about the
document to his satisfaction. Holle also stated that he signed the document freely and
voluntarily, without threat or coercion. Moreover, the district court found that Holle was
competent, and Holle does not challenge this ruling on appeal. See State v. Shopteese,
283 Kan. 331, 340-41, 153 P.3d 1208 (2007) (noting defendant must be competent for his
or her waiver of rights in conjunction with guilty or no-contest plea to be considered
voluntary).

Holle has failed to establish that the district court's decision was based on an error
of fact or law or that it was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. Therefore, Holle did not
meet his burden to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion
to withdraw his plea.

Affirmed.