City of Ottawa v. Lester
822 P.2d 72
Kan.App.,1991.

In postconviction motion, movant sought to withdraw guilty plea to driving under the influence. The Municipal Court denied motion, and movant appealed. The Franklin District Court, Jules V. Doty, J., affirmed, and movant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Gernon, J., held that: (1) appeal was not moot, and (2) trial court was not required to inform movant of collateral consequence of his guilty plea.
Affirmed.

**73 *244 Syllabus by the Court

1. An appeal will not be dismissed as moot unless it clearly and convincingly appears the actual controversy has ceased and the only judgment which could be entered would be ineffectual for any purpose and an idle act insofar as rights involved in the action are concerned.
2. Under K.S.A. 22-3210, a trial court is required to inform the defendant of the direct penal consequences of a guilty plea before accepting the guilty plea. The trial court is not required to inform a defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea.
3. The tests for whether consequences are collateral are whether the consequences imposed are a definite, immediate, and largely automatic result of the guilty plea and whether the consequences require application of a legal provision extraneous to the definition of the criminal offense and the provisions for sentencing.
4. The suspension of driving privileges pursuant to K.S.A.1990 Supp. 8-1567 upon a conviction for driving under the influence is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea.