By CRISTINA JANNEY
Hays Post
A Victoria man who was sentenced in Ellis County district court in 2022 on sex charges is seeking an appeal.
Cody Schultz, who was charged in 2020, entered into a plea agreement on March 22, 2022, on charges of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and electronic solicitation of a minor. He was charged in a second case with rape.
He was sentenced on March 22, 2022, to a controlling sentence of 25 years on the case involving the child sex case and 186 months to run consecutively on the rape case of a woman in 2014.
Schultz appealed his conviction, but the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed it and his sentence on Feb. 9, 2024.
Schultz filed a petition of habeas corpus on his sentences for both cases.
In an amended petition filed in October, he alleged:
• He was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel.
• His counsel failed to adequately advise him of the sentencing discretion available to the court, and he was misled into believing the sentencing court was likely to exercise discretion in his favor and impose a lesser sentence than it ultimately did.
• His counsel failed to adequately explain the risks and benefits of entering guilty pleas, pursue potential defenses and present mitigating evidence at sentencing.
• Newly discovered evidence exists that was not available at the time of his plea proceedings that relates to the credibility of key witnesses and the factual basis of his convictions.
Schultz is requesting an evidentiary hearing and discovery to develop his claim.
He is asking that his conviction and sentencing be vacated, and he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.
Ellis County Attorney Aaron Cunningham, in his answer to the petition, said Schultz does not have standing to appeal at this time.
Cunningham said Schultz violated his plea agreement by filing his own motion without his attorney for a departure for a lesser sentence in his case.
Cunningham cited a transcript from Schultz's arraignment that said Schultz was informed of the range of the sentence he was facing. He also said Schultz's attorney explained to him the court's discretion on sentencing, and he was given a recess to further discuss the issue with his attorney during the sentencing hearing.
He also cited Schultz's plea agreement, under which he waived his right to a jury trial in favor of a bench trial before a judge.
Cunnigham asserts in his answer that Schultz missed his window to appeal. He also said Schultz should have appealed the appellate court's ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court.
He said Schultz's petition does not fall under any of the exceptions to the untimely appeal rule.
Cunningham said Schultz also has failed to provide any new evidence in the case.
"Here, the defendant ambiguously claims he has new evidence regarding witness credibility, but fails to make any reasonable proffer of the evidence and fails to explain how this new evidence could result in a different determination from the court's bench trial on stipulated facts," Cunningham said in his answer.
The next hearing on this case is set for 9 a.m. Feb. 26 via Zoom.