Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that Kristopher Korsakas was not completely denied counsel at a critical stage when his attorney declined to argue his presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea and the trial court permitted Korsakas to present the motion himself. The court concluded that counsel remained appointed and available, there was no actual conflict of interest, and automatic reversal under the complete-denial-of-counsel doctrine was not warranted. The court also held that a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea may be oral or written and is not barred by civil motion procedures.
Holdings
- Although the sentencing hearing and consideration of Korsakas's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea were critical stages, Korsakas was not completely denied counsel because appointed counsel remained present, appointed, and available, was not silenced or prevented from assisting, and did not have a conflict of interest.
- A motion to withdraw a guilty plea made before entry of judgment is not a collateral attack and is governed by CrR 4.2(f).
- A motion to withdraw a guilty plea under CrR 4.2(f) made before judgment may be oral or written and is not subject to specific written-motion, notice, or service requirements under the civil rules.
- An allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, without facts showing an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel's performance, does not require substitution of appointed counsel.
Questions Presented
- Whether a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is a critical stage of the prosecution.
- Whether counsel's failure to argue Korsakas's motion to withdraw his guilty plea constituted a complete denial of counsel at a critical stage requiring automatic reversal.
- Whether alleged disagreement between appointed counsel and the defendant concerning the motion created a conflict of interest requiring substitution of counsel.
- Whether a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea must satisfy written-motion, notice, and service requirements under the civil rules.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (30)
- State v. Heng, 2 Wn.3d 384, 392, 539 P.3d 13 (2023)(followed)
- State v. Buckman, 190 Wn.2d 51, 56 n.1, 409 P.3d 193 (2018)(followed)
- State v. Cross, 156 Wn.2d 580, 605-07, 132 P.3d 80 (2006)(followed)
- State v. Olmsted, 70 Wn.2d 116, 118, 422 P.2d 312 (1966)(followed)
- State v. Harell, 80 Wn. App. 802, 803-05, 911 P.2d 1034 (1996)(distinguished)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969)(followed)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S. Ct. 3308, 77 L. Ed. 2d 987 (1983)(followed)
- State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 30-31, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011)(followed)
- State v. Taylor, 83 Wn.2d 594, 596-97, 521 P.2d 699 (1974)(followed)
- State v. Saas, 118 Wn.2d 37, 42, 820 P.2d 505 (1991)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 30.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…