State v. Jones
2012 SD 7
| S.D. | 2012Background
- Jones pled guilty to four counts under a plea agreement after the State proposed to dismiss five counts and cap the sentence at 70 years.
- The State failed to verbalize the plea agreement at sentencing, which the trial court later found to be a material breach.
- Jones moved for reconsideration; at resentencing he requested a new sentencing judge, which the trial court denied.
- At resentencing, Jones received a sentence 15 years less than the initial sentence but still above the 70-year cap.
- Jones argued the breach entitled him to resentencing before a different judge and that the sentence was cruel and unusual.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding no plain error or cruel-and-unusual issue warranted reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breach of plea agreement requires resentencing before a different judge. | State argues no automatic requirement for a new judge absent timely objection. | Jones contends breach mandates resentencing before a different judge per precedent. | No automatic requirement; preserved issue not timely objected thus plain error review applies. |
| Whether Jones preserved the claim of plea-breach for appeal. | State asserts no contemporaneous objection was raised. | Jones argues his motion to reconsider preserved the issue. | Jones forfeited; no contemporaneous objection; plain error review only. |
| Whether the State's breach was plain error affecting substantial rights. | State argues any breach was cured at resentencing and did not prejudice Jones. | Jones asserts material breach violated due process and bargained-for promise. | No prejudice shown; breach did not affect substantial rights under plain error test. |
| Whether the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. | State contends sentence within statutory maximums and not grossly disproportionate. | Jones claims proportionality issues under constitutions. | Not cruel and unusual; sentence within statutory maximum and not grossly disproportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review governs forfeited plea-breach claims)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (breach of plea agreement and remedy principles)
- United States v. Smith, 590 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2009) (contemporaneous objection requirement for de novo review)
- Oldham-Ramona Sch. Dist. No. 39-5 v. Ust, 502 N.W.2d 574 (S.D. 1993) (defining standards of review and procedural posture)
- Waldner, 692 N.W.2d 187 (S.D. 2005) (due process and fulfillment of plea bargains)