State v. King, 2014 SD 19

In March 2012 King wrote multiple checks totaling $1,755 that were dishonored; he was charged with grand theft by insufficient funds check.
Preliminary hearing and initial arraignment (Dec. 7, 2012) before Judge Gering: King was advised of rights but plea was continued.
On Feb. 6, 2013 King pleaded guilty before Judge Smith pursuant to a plea agreement (State would not pursue other charges/part II information); King provided a factual basis and counsel was present.
At the Feb. 6 colloquy Judge Smith advised King of the right to a jury trial, to confront witnesses, and the right to remain silent; King affirmed understanding and voluntariness.
On April 3, 2013 Judge Smith sentenced King to eight years in the penitentiary.
King appealed, arguing (1) inadequate advisement of constitutional and statutory rights (specifically a failure to advise of the right to trial in the county where the offense occurred), and (2) that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of plea advisement (Boykin rights)	State: plea colloquy and prior arraignment satisfied advisement requirements	King: Judge Smith failed to fully advise Boykin rights at Feb. 6 plea (not told right to speedy, public trial by impartial jury in Aurora County)	Affirmed: totality of circumstances show knowing, voluntary plea; advisement was sufficient
Requirement to advise of right to jury trial in county of offense	State: not required at plea colloquy to recite every constitutional right; Boykin covers core rights	King: omission of county-specific jury-trial advisement deprived him of due process	Court: no per-se rule; prior cases tempered; omission not fatal where record shows voluntary, informed waiver
Consideration of collateral factors (age, record, counsel, plea agreement)	State: these factors support voluntariness	King: argued inadequacy of colloquy overrides those factors	Court: these factors (45 yrs old, GED, counsel, prior record, plea agreement, factual basis) support knowing waiver
Cruel and unusual punishment challenge to eight-year sentence	State: sentence within statutory limits and not cruel and unusual	King: eight-year term violates Eighth Amendment	Denied: Court found no merit to Eighth Amendment claim

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (recognition that guilty plea waives trial, confrontation, and self-incrimination rights)
Monette v. Weber, 771 N.W.2d 920 (S.D. 2009) (plea validity assessed by totality of circumstances and requirement of affirmative record showing knowing, voluntary waiver)
State v. Tiegen, 744 N.W.2d 578 (S.D. 2008) (de novo review for alleged due process violations)
Croan v. State, 295 N.W.2d 728 (S.D. 1980) (prior approach stressing county-jury advisement significance)
State v. Sutton, 317 N.W.2d 414 (S.D. 1982) (prior case emphasizing advisement of county jury right)
Roseland v. State, 334 N.W.2d 43 (S.D. 1983) (moving away from strict requirement; sufficiency judged by overall record)
State v. Holmes, 270 N.W.2d 51 (S.D. 1978) (advisement sufficiency examined in context of total record)