State v. Hutto

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the denial of Matthew Hutto's postsentencing motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to two counts of felony first-degree murder. The court held that Hutto failed to establish manifest injustice based on counsel's alleged failure to advise him about a compulsion defense because the defense was not factually supported and counsel's performance was not shown to be deficient. The court also reaffirmed the abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing denial of a postsentencing plea-withdrawal motion.

Holdings

1. Compulsion may be asserted as a defense to felony murder when compulsion would be a defense to the underlying felony.
2. A compulsion defense requires a present, imminent, and impending coercion or duress that creates a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury; the compulsion must be continuous, and the defendant must lack a reasonable opportunity to escape without committing the crime. A threat of future injury alone is insufficient.
3. A defendant is not entitled to a compulsion instruction unless the defense is both legally and factually appropriate; the record did not support such an instruction for Hutto.
4. To withdraw a plea after sentencing based on ineffective assistance, the defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below the standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's errors, there was a reasonable probability the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on trial. Hutto failed to make that showing.
5. After sentence, a court may set aside a conviction and permit plea withdrawal only to correct manifest injustice, and Hutto failed to establish manifest injustice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Hutto's postsentencing motion to withdraw his guilty pleas for manifest injustice.
2. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to inform Hutto that compulsion could be asserted as a defense to felony murder.
3. Whether the evidence would have supported a factually appropriate compulsion-defense instruction for the underlying aggravated-burglary felony.

Disposition

affirmed