State v. McColl
2011 S.D. 90
| S.D. | 2011Background
- McColl, a Fall River County Deputy Sheriff, pled guilty to one count of third-degree rape under a plea agreement that dismissed other charges and barred release of a computer analysis; the sealed supplemental agreement prohibited disclosure of the computer analysis results.
- Investigation initial focus on McColl’s use of Sheriff’s Department computers for pornography, leading to a search of work computers and then all Sheriff’s Department computers; four computers were confiscated and shared among deputies.
- Plea agreement included a sealed supplement restricting disclosure of the computer analysis results.
- Post-sentencing letters indicated witnesses aware of sealed portions involving pornography and McColl’s computer use, suggesting breach concerns.
- McColl moved to withdraw his plea claiming the State breached the plea agreement by leaking the computer analysis; the circuit court denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration and an evidentiary hearing.
- Court upholds denial, applying manifest injustice standard and requiring specific, non-conclusory facts to warrant a hearing; McColl failed to allege facts showing breach by the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court must hold a hearing on breach of the plea agreement. | McColl argues breach shown by rumors of disclosure. | State contends allegations are too vague to warrant a hearing. | No hearing required; allegations insufficient. |
| Whether McColl adequately alleged facts to withdraw his plea after sentencing. | McColl asserts specific facts of leak and breach. | Breath of plea must be shown by concrete facts, not rumors. | Facts alleged were conclusory; not enough for relief. |
| What standard governs post-sentencing plea withdrawal for manifest injustice. | Due process requires fulfillment of bargain. | Manifest injustice requires clear, non-conclusory facts. | SD courts require non-conclusory facts; no manifest injustice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 686 (S.D. 1984) (withdrawal for manifest injustice when plea not fulfilled)
- State v. Thielsen, 2004 S.D. 17 (S.D. 2004) (post-sentencing plea withdrawal requires non-conclusory facts)
- Vanden Hoek v. Weber, 724 N.W.2d 858 (S.D. 2006) (due process and fulfillment of bargain guidance)
- Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303 (Wis. 1996) (clear and convincing standard for post-sentencing withdrawal; need specific facts)
- Jenner v. Dooley, 590 N.W.2d 463 (S.D. 1999) (habeas-like pleading standards; specificity required)
- Sweeney v. Leapley, 487 N.W.2d 617 (S.D. 1992) (evidentiary hearings unwarranted on lacking substantial issues)