district court may extend the one-year time limitation for a
postsentence motion to withdraw a plea only if the defendant
shows excusable neglect. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3210(e)(2).
Excusable neglect under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3210(e)(2)
requires something more than unintentional inadvertence or
neglect common to all who share the ordinary frailties of
mankind. It requires some justification for an error beyond
mere carelessness or ignorance of the law on the part of the
litigant or his or her attorney.
defense attorney must advise a client whether a conviction
likely will lead to deportation if that effect can be readily
determined. When deportation is less clear, the attorney need
only inform the noncitizen client that an uncertain risk
exists of adverse immigration consequences. Padilla v.
Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 367-69, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176
L.Ed.2d 284 (2010).
this case, the acknowledgment of rights and entry of plea
form that defendant received during his plea hearing,
reviewed with his attorney, understood, and signed, satisfied
the Padilla requirements, as its language clearly
identified deportation as a likely outcome instead of a mere
from Sedgwick District Court; Jeffrey E. Goering, judge.
Heather Cessna, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for
A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district
attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Standridge, P.J., Gardner, J., and Walker, S.J.
Gonzalez pleaded guilty to various criminal charges, was
granted probation, and then violated the terms of his
probation. The district court revoked his probation and
imposed a modified sentence. After serving that sentence,
Gonzalez was ordered to be deported from the United States.
later filed an untimely postsentence motion to withdraw his
plea, arguing his trial attorney had failed to tell him about
the effect his guilty plea could have on his immigration
status. Gonzalez also claimed he did not know that as a
permanent resident noncitizen he would be treated differently
than a United States citizen. The district court denied the
motion finding it untimely. It found that Gonzalez'
ignorance of his status and of the law did not rise to the
level of excusable neglect as was necessary to consider the
merits of his untimely motion. Because we agree that Gonzalez
made no showing of excusable neglect, we affirm.
and Procedural Background
2012, the State charged Gonzalez with multiple offenses:
• possessing a controlled substance;
• driving under the influence;
• driving with a suspended ...