Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Schow

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided June 15, 2007No. 96,820Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMalone, J.

I concur with the majority on the first issue that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clifton Lane Schow’s motion to withdraw his plea. As the majority concludes, a mutual mistake of the defendant’s criminal history score, standing alone, is generally insufficient to justify withdrawal of a plea. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority on the second issue concerning Schow’s objection to his criminal history score. I believe the district court erred when it placed the burden on Schow to disprove his misdemeanor convictions which Schow claimed were incorrect.

*949The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. HobbsSupreme Court of Kansas · 2003
  2. State v. PraterCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2003
  3. State v. HattCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2002
  4. State v. WeltyCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API