State v. Long Fox
2013 S.D. 40
S.D.2013Background
- Travis Long Fox, while intoxicated, stole a car and wrecked it, then fled the scene.
- The State charged Long Fox with grand theft and other offenses; a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (Agreement) was entered deferring the grand theft charge for 24 months if conditions were met.
- The Agreement required Long Fox to plead guilty to reckless driving, ingestion, and failure to report an accident, with potential dismissal of other charges if he complied.
- If any condition was violated, the grand theft charge would be re-filed and Long Fox would plead guilty to grand theft.
- Long Fox violated several conditions, the State re-filed grand theft, and Long Fox moved to exercise his right to a jury trial on the grand theft charge.
- The circuit court denied the jury-trial motion, Long Fox pleaded guilty to grand theft under the Agreement, and was sentenced; on appeal, the voluntariness of the grand theft plea and the enforceability of that plea provision were challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the guilty-plea provision in the Agreement is enforceable. | Long Fox contends the plea-conditional provision violated rights and was not voluntary. | Long Fox argues the provision coerced a guilty plea and denied jury trial rights. | The plea-for-grand-theft provision is unenforceable; Long Fox did not voluntarily enter that guilty plea. |
| Whether the right to a jury trial was properly preserved given the Agreement. | Long Fox asserts the right to a jury trial was improperly overridden by the Agreement. | The State argues the Agreement bound Long Fox to plead if breached. | Long Fox was not bound to a jury-waived plea; the right to a jury trial was violated by enforcement of the contested provision. |
| Whether there is a jurisdictional/structural issue with deferred-prosecution practices in SD. | The SD system lacks statutory framework for deferred prosecutions. | Deferred prosecutions are permissible under current practice. | The court notes lack of formal SD standards for deferred prosecutions and remands for consistent proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992) (plea must be voluntary and intelligent; waives several constitutional rights)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1969) (plea must be voluntary expression of choice)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (voluntary and intelligent guilty plea essential)
- Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 (1927) (plea must be voluntary)
- Zakaria v. State, 2007 SD 27, 730 N.W.2d 140 (S.D. 2007) (de novo review of constitutional rights claims)