In State v. Aguilar, Case No. 95,249 (May 21, 2010), the Kansas Supreme Court recently ruled that a defendant had shown the “good cause” necessary to withdraw her guilty plea, and in the process, the court set a new legal standard for how lower courts should evaluate plea withdrawal motions. The defendant in the case was represented on appeal by Carl Folsom, a partner at Bell Folsom, PA.
In the district court, Ms. Aguilar and her co-defendant were represented by the same attorney. Both Ms. Aguilar and the codefendant entered guilty pleas to possession of cocaine. Although, Ms. Aguilar pled out as charged, and the co-defendant received a plea deal that involved several offenses being dismissed. Ms. Aguilar attempted to withdraw her plea before sentencing, and the district court would not let her.
On appeal, Mr. Folsom argued that the district court should have allowed Ms. Aguilar to withdraw her guilty plea before sentencing because it was a conflict of interest for the same attorney to represent both Ms. Aguilar and the co-defendant during the plea process. Mr. Folsom also noted the financial pressures that Ms. Aguilar encountered and the fact that the district court never advised Ms. Aguilar of the maximum sentence for the charge for which she had pled guilty. Mr. Folsom’s oral argument in the case can be listened to here.
The Kansas Supreme Court ultimately held that the district court should have allowed Ms. Aguilar to withdraw her plea agreement. In its holding, the court set forth a new standard for how lower courts should evaluate motions to withdraw plea that are filed before sentencing. While the “competence of counsel” had always been a factor for evaluating these plea withdrawal motions, the court held that this factor should not be “mechanically applied to demand that a defendant demonstrate ineffective assistance arising to the level of a violation of the Sixth Amendment.” Thus, the holding in Aguilar effectively will make it easier for many defendants to withdraw their guilty pleas before sentencing in the future.
As this case shows, the attorneys at Bell Folsom, PA are experienced at handling criminal appeals and at handling motions to withdraw pleas. It also shows the danger of choosing the cheap attorney over the good attorney. With legal representation, as in all things, you get what you pay for. In Ms. Aguilar’s case, even though reversed by the Kansas Supreme Court, it was was too little, too late. She had already served her time in prison by the time this opinion was released. If you need representation in either of these areas, you should contact Bell Folsom, P.A. as soon as possible.