State v. Alvarez, 982 N.W.2d 12

Defendant Roberto Carlos Alvarez lived with the victim’s family and, while high on PCP, sexually assaulted the victim (age five) on January 14, 2020; DNA from swabs matched Alvarez.
Alvarez was indicted on two counts of first-degree rape and one count of aggravated assault; he pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree rape under a plea agreement that dismissed other charges and did not limit the court’s sentencing discretion.
At the change-of-plea hearing Alvarez acknowledged the plea, agreed the State’s factual basis (which included sexual penetration) was true, and signed an acknowledgement admitting penetration.
Months later, in a letter and at sentencing Alvarez asked to withdraw his plea and requested new counsel, asserting (1) he did not commit penetration, (2) his attorney misled him about the deal (told him he would serve only five years), and (3) he has limited English literacy.
The circuit court denied the motion to withdraw as noncredible and a delaying tactic, proceeded to sentence Alvarez to 100 years with 15 years suspended, and Alvarez appealed denial of withdrawal and asserted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Alvarez)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying pre-sentence withdrawal of Alvarez’s guilty plea	Plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis; Alvarez’s post‑plea denials are self‑serving and inconsistent with his sworn admissions	Alvarez claimed he did not penetrate the victim, was misinformed about the plea length by counsel, and had limited ability to read English so he misunderstood the plea	Court affirmed: denial was not an abuse of discretion—defendant’s belated, contradictory assertions insufficient to show a fair and just reason to withdraw
Whether the Court should decide ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal	Such claims normally are not resolved on direct appeal absent exceptional circumstances; record inadequate for review	Counsel visited infrequently, misled Alvarez about the deal, failed to ensure Alvarez understood the plea	Court declined to address ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal and suggested habeas or postconviction proceedings to develop the record

State v. Ceplecha, 940 N.W.2d 682 (S.D. 2020) (defendant must show a "fair and just" reason to withdraw a plea)
State v. Kvasnicka, 873 N.W.2d 705 (S.D. 2016) (factors to consider when deciding a pre‑sentence plea withdrawal)
United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670 (1997) (context for "fair and just" standard for plea withdrawal)
State v. Thielsen, 675 N.W.2d 429 (S.D. 2004) (misapprehension of facts is a relevant factor in plea‑withdrawal analysis)
United States v. Peterson, 414 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2005) (contradictory post‑plea claims that imply perjury require a compelling explanation)
State v. Vortherms, 952 N.W.2d 113 (S.D. 2020) (ineffective-assistance claims generally not resolved on direct appeal)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (discussed in relation to pleas entered to obtain a benefit while asserting innocence)
State v. Clegg, 635 N.W.2d 578 (S.D. 2001) (discussing benefit‑of‑the‑bargain/Alford‑style pleas)