Case Woods V. Kansas

Decent Essays
Defendant Hankins filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence on appeal after pleading guilty to felony charges because he argued a Kansas trial court wrongfully considered a deferred judgment from Oklahoma in his sentencing calculation. The State argued that Kansas law required such deferred judgments from other states to be included in sentencing determinations. The Supreme Court of Kansas disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Hankins’ motion, finding that there was a discrepancy between Kansas and Oklahoma’s statutory standards for an entry of a judgment of guilt. Under Kansas law, the Court concluded, a conviction requires a judgment of guilt. However, under Oklahoma law, “an entry of judgment will not be entered for an offender who successfully completes a deferred judgment. The initial conditions are to be imposed ‘without entering a judgment of guilt.’” Therefore, the Court found that no…show more content…
Kansas, 379 P.3d 1134 (Kan. App. 2016), review denied

Defendant Woods moved pro se to withdraw his guilty plea to second degree murder. Woods had entered a guilty plea pursuant to agreement; he claimed that he would not have entered the plea but for his attorney’s failure to sufficiently investigate a witness’s proposed trial testimony. The district court denied Woods’s motion and sentenced Woods to 258 months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Woods filed a K.S.A. § 60-1507 motion for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed; res judicata barred his claim, and even if it did not, “Woods failed to overcome the strong presumption that his attorneys sufficiently investigated [the witness’s] proposed trial testimony.” Woods filed a second § 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that “a colorable claim of actual innocence” required the district court to reconsider the merits of his
Get Access