A comparison of the facts in Ebaben's case with our prior caselaw demonstrates the recitation at the plea hearing was simply too bare-boned to conclude on review that the trial court fulfilled its statutory duty of "satisfying itself" that a factual basis for the plea existed. Without fulfilling that duty, the trial court as a matter of law had no basis to find that Ebaben's plea was fairly and understandingly made. We hold the trial court abused its discretion in finding a sufficient factual basis to support the plea.The KSC went on to hold that, absent a proper factual basis, the plea cannot be considered knowing and voluntary:
K.S.A. 22-3210(a)(4)'s purpose of ensuring that a plea is knowingly and voluntarily entered is defeated if the district court is presented with no evidence to establish the defendant's conduct falls within the elements of the charged crime.As a result, the KSC held that the district court was required to allow Mr. Ebaben to withdraw his plea.