Opinion
110,617.
01-30-2015
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael TUBBS, Appellant.
Johnathan M. Grube, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant. Steven J. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Johnathan M. Grube, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Steven J. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before McANANY, P.J., ATCHESON, J., and HEBERT, S.J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Michael Tubbs appeals the Johnson County District Court's denial of his motion to withdraw his no-contest pleas to charges of rape and indecent liberties with a child. In its brief, the State effectively confesses error. We, therefore, reverse the ruling of the district court and remand with directions that Tubbs' motion be granted and the case go forward.
The State had charged Tubbs with four sex offenses against two minors. After the cases were consolidated in the district court, Tubbs entered into a plea agreement under which two of the charges were dismissed and that called for a joint sentencing recommendation that would avoid Jessica's Law penalties. Before sentencing, Tubbs filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The district court appointed a new lawyer for Tubbs, conducted an evidentiary hearing over 2 days, and made detailed findings and conclusions denying the motion. Tubbs was later sentenced to a controlling prison term of 258 months. He has appealed the denial of the motion to withdraw his pleas.
A defendant may be permitted to withdraw a plea before sentencing in the discretion of the district court for good cause. K.S.A.2013 Supp. 22–3210(d). An appellate court reviews the ultimate ruling on the motion for abuse of discretion. State v. White, 289 Kan. 279, 284, 211 P.3d 805 (2009). A district court oversteps that discretion if it rules in a way no reasonable judicial officer would under the circumstances, if it ignores controlling facts or relies on unproven factual representations, or if it acts outside the legal framework appropriate to the issue. See Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906, 935, 296 P.3d 1106, cert. denied 134 S.Ct. 162 (2013) ; State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, Syl. ¶ 3, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S.Ct. 1594 (2012).
The State offers a four-sentence response to Tubbs' arguments on appeal. The State makes no effort to defend the district court's ruling and “agrees Tubbs' no contest pleas should be withdrawn.” This amounts to a confession of error, although the State does not outline specifically how it believes the district court abused its discretion. We accept the State's concession that Tubbs should be afforded relief. See Williams v. Darr, 4 Kan.App.2d 178, 179, 603 P.2d 1021 (1979) (noting effect of confession of error in that case). The sentencing issue Tubbs raised is, therefore, moot.
We reverse the district court and remand with directions that Tubbs' motion to withdraw his pleas be granted and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.