## Facts

- Victor Conger was killed by a gunshot to the head on March 24, 1999, and his body was found in a Pittsburg, Kansas intersection.
- Ahmad Bey and his brother, Yusif Bey, were initially charged with premeditated first-degree murder.
- The State offered a “package deal” plea bargain conditioned on pleas by both brothers.
- Under the agreement, Yusif would plead to first-degree felony murder (life imprisonment; parole eligibility after 15 years), and Ahmad would plead nolo contendere to aiding and abetting intentional second-degree murder (life imprisonment; parole eligibility after 10 years).
- Ahmad signed a written plea agreement and entered a nolo contendere plea to aiding and abetting intentional second-degree murder under K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 21-3402(a) and K.S.A. 21-3205.
- During the plea hearing, the court questioned Ahmad, and he confirmed the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.
- Before sentencing, Ahmad moved to withdraw the plea, asserting lack of a factual basis, involuntariness due to the package-deal structure, and new material evidence affecting culpability.
- The district court denied the motion; Ahmad appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in finding a sufficient factual basis to accept the nolo contendere plea under K.S.A. 22-3210(a)(4).
2. Whether the package-deal plea bargain required additional judicial inquiry and rendered the plea involuntary.
3. Whether alleged new material evidence constituted “good cause” to withdraw the plea before sentencing under K.S.A. 22-3210(d).

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Ahmad Bey’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw his plea.
- The court held the record provided a sufficient factual basis for the plea, based on the charging documents, preliminary hearing materials, and the plea colloquy.
- The court held package-deal pleas are not per se invalid; although disclosure to the court and careful voluntariness inquiry are preferred, the record supported a voluntary plea in this case.
- The court held the asserted new evidence did not establish good cause to withdraw the plea and did not show the plea was unfairly or unknowingly made.
- The court applied abuse-of-discretion review and held the defendant did not meet the burden to show the denial was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.

## Legal Principles

- A court may accept a guilty or nolo contendere plea only if satisfied there is a factual basis for the plea, meaning the record supports each element of the offense.
- A factual basis may be established through the complaint or information, the prosecutor’s proffer, the defendant’s statements at the plea hearing, or the judge’s familiarity with evidence from a preliminary examination.
- “Package deal” plea agreements involving leniency to a third party are not per se invalid, but the trial court should be informed of the arrangement to permit appropriate inquiry into voluntariness.
- A pre-sentence plea may be withdrawn only for good cause shown and within the trial court’s discretion; relevant considerations include competent counsel, absence of coercion or unfair advantage, and whether the plea was fairly and understandingly made.
- Denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the defendant bears the burden of showing abuse.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the denial of Ahmad Bey’s motion to withdraw his nolo contendere plea, concluding that the record supported a factual basis for aiding and abetting intentional second-degree murder, the package-deal bargain did not make the plea involuntary on these facts, and the claimed new evidence did not establish good cause for withdrawal before sentencing.


State v. Bey, 17 P.3d 322 (Kan. 2001)