State v. Martinez, 2016 S.D. 49

Raymond Martinez was indicted on multiple felonies (rape, burglary, kidnapping, aggravated assault) and a habitual-offender information; he was court‑appointed counsel and pleaded guilty to first‑degree burglary in exchange for dismissal of other charges.
Martinez spent ~390 days in jail before sentencing and claims his appointed attorney communicated rarely, delayed discovery review, failed to pursue requested investigations and evaluations, and pressured him into a plea based on incorrect promises.
Martinez wrote to the court seeking new counsel before sentencing and complained his attorney had not completed his presentence statement or gathered supporting materials.
At sentencing counsel repeatedly sought a continuance, then told the court she was medically and mentally unable to proceed and asked to be discharged; the court denied withdrawal/continuance and proceeded with sentencing.
The circuit court sentenced Martinez to 20 years with 4 years suspended (credit for time served). Martinez appealed claiming ineffective assistance, the court’s failure to rule on his request for new counsel, and that the sentence was cruel and unusual.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Martinez)	Held
1. Ineffective assistance of counsel	Many allegations are unsupported by record; issue better developed in habeas where counsel can explain strategy	Counsel was noncommunicative, unprepared, failed to pursue motions/investigation, and coerced a plea; performance prejudiced him	Court declined to resolve on direct appeal; remanded candidate for habeas proceedings to develop record
2. Court’s handling of motion to discharge counsel	Denial appropriate absent showing of complete breakdown or good cause; substitution would disrupt process	Court failed to rule on his request, left him without counsel at critical sentencing, and counsel stated she was unable to proceed	Reversed and remanded: court erred in not appointing new counsel and must hold new sentencing with substitute counsel
3. Cruel and unusual sentence	Sentence lawful and within statutory limits	Sentence grossly disproportionate and cruel and unusual	Not reached (moot) because case reversed and remanded on counsel issue

State v. Thomas, 796 N.W.2d 706 (S.D. 2011) (explains general rule against resolving ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. Arabie, 663 N.W.2d 250 (S.D. 2003) (exception where counsel’s performance manifestly usurps rights)
State v. Dillon, 632 N.W.2d 37 (S.D. 2001) (habeas allows development of record and counsel explanations)
State v. Schmidt, 825 N.W.2d 889 (S.D. 2012) (direct-appeal ineffective-assistance review limited when record inadequate)
State v. Reed, 793 N.W.2d 63 (S.D. 2010) (habeas appointment of counsel under SDCL 21-27-4 discussed)
State v. Irvine, 547 N.W.2d 177 (S.D. 1996) (standard and duty to hold hearing on requests to change counsel)
State v. Fender, 484 N.W.2d 307 (S.D. 1992) (defendant bears burden to show good cause for substitution)
State v. Talarico, 661 N.W.2d 11 (S.D. 2003) (defendant must be given opportunity to present reasons for change of counsel)
State v. Beckley, 742 N.W.2d 841 (S.D. 2007) (factors trial court should consider when ruling on continuance)
In re J.G.R., 691 N.W.2d 586 (S.D. 2004) (continuance analysis framework)
State v. Phelps, 297 N.W.2d 769 (N.D. 1980) (procedural fairness in sentencing as robust as at guilt phase)