State v. Beckwith, 2015 SD 76

Beckwith was stopped for illegal motorcycle handlebars; during the stop he bit open a small bag and discarded it; the bag tested positive for methamphetamine and urinalysis confirmed methamphetamine metabolite.
Charged with possession and ingestion (Class 5 felonies); ingestion dismissed in plea deal and Beckwith entered an Alford plea to possession.
The court services officer (CSO) reported Beckwith failed to cooperate with the presentence investigation and had a history of probation/parole violations; CSO recommended 120 days jail then two years probation.
At sentencing the court identified three aggravating circumstances: failure to cooperate with the CSO, two prior felonies (including a probation violation), and entry of an Alford plea reflecting lack of remorse/acceptance of responsibility.
The court departed from presumptive probation and imposed 36 months with 18 months suspended, but the written judgment omitted restating the aggravating circumstances required by statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stated aggravating circumstances justified departing from presumptive probation	The State argued the three aggravators created a significant risk to the public, supporting incarceration	Beckwith argued the factors were insufficient: missed one call (not noncooperation), prior felonies were old, and Alford plea did not show lack of remorse or risk	Court held no abuse of discretion: totality of noncooperation, prior felonies/probation failure, and Alford plea conduct justified departure
Whether failing to restate aggravating circumstances in the written judgment violated SDCL 22-6-11 and due process	State urged the omission was clerical and remediable by remand to amend the judgment	Beckwith urged the mandatory "shall" in SDCL 22-6-11 requires resentencing because failing to follow the statute violates due process	Court held the omission was a mandatory clerical error but not a due-process defect affecting outcome; remand to amend the dispositional order to include the stated aggravators was sufficient

State v. Engelmann, 541 N.W.2d 96 (S.D. 1995) (explaining Alford pleas are treated as guilty pleas)
State v. Whitfield, 862 N.W.2d 133 (S.D. 2015) (remedy for omission: remand to amend dispositional order)
State v. Moran, 862 N.W.2d 107 (S.D. 2015) (prior felonies and probation failures can be aggravating circumstances)
State v. Hernandez, 845 N.W.2d 21 (S.D. 2014) (history of noncompliance and prior offenses relevant to risk assessment)
State v. Nelson, 587 N.W.2d 439 (S.D. 1998) (mandatory procedural errors can violate due process when they undermine trial fairness)
State v. Thayer, 713 N.W.2d 608 (S.D. 2006) (oral sentence controls and court may remand to conform written judgment)
State v. Knight, 701 N.W.2d 83 (Iowa 2005) (lack of remorse is a pertinent sentencing factor even with Alford pleas)
State v. Stahl, 619 N.W.2d 870 (S.D. 2000) (a defendant's lack of remorse is appropriately considered at sentencing)
Duxbury v. McCook County, 205 N.W. 242 (S.D. 1925) (clerical errors in judgments may be corrected on remand)