State v. Hale, 907 N.W.2d 56

Hale was indicted on multiple charges including kidnapping and robbery; parties reached a plea deal for Hale to plead guilty to one count of aggravated assault, cooperate against codefendants, and receive a capped disposition (suspended penitentiary time); other charges and a part II habitual offender information would be dismissed.
At the February 15, 2017 change-of-plea hearing the agreement was stated on the record, the court canvassed Hale, accepted the factual basis (an affidavit) and accepted Hale’s guilty plea.
During the plea colloquy the court described the plea agreement’s effect (no immediate penitentiary time, suspension up to 15 years, probation) and asked Hale if he wished to take the plea; Hale agreed.
The circuit court did not expressly say it accepted or rejected the plea agreement at that hearing, nor did it defer its decision pending a presentence report; later (by email and at a hearing) the court stated it intended to reject the plea agreement.
The court issued an order rejecting the plea agreement, gave Hale the option to withdraw his plea or persist, and the State and Hale objected; Hale sought and obtained an intermediate appeal to this Court.
The State joined Hale on appeal, asking the trial court be directed to sentence consistent with the plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea agreement was a binding agreement under SDCL 23A-7-8(3)	The State: the agreement included an agreed disposition (suspended sentence) and thus was binding	Hale: same — the agreement was an agreed-upon disposition under subsection (3)	Held: Yes — the agreement was a binding plea agreement under SDCL 23A-7-8(3)
Whether the circuit court accepted the binding plea agreement at the change-of-plea hearing so that it must honor the agreed disposition	The State: the court implicitly accepted the agreement at the plea hearing and is bound to honor it	Hale: the court implicitly accepted the agreement at the plea hearing and thus must sentence per the agreement	Held: The court implicitly accepted the plea agreement at the plea hearing; trial court’s rejection reversed and remanded for sentencing consistent with the agreement

State v. Shumaker, 792 N.W.2d 174 (S.D. 2010) (court may implicitly accept plea agreement; acceptance analyzed from plea-hearing statements)
State v. Reaves, 757 N.W.2d 580 (S.D. 2008) (distinguishes binding vs. recommendatory plea agreements; recognizes implicit acceptance)
State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 686 (S.D. 1984) (trial court’s duty to perform/abide by plea bargain)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (due process requires fulfillment of plea bargain expectations once defendant pleads guilty)
State v. Waldner, 692 N.W.2d 187 (S.D. 2005) (defendant’s expectation in plea bargains and requirement for performance by the state)