State v. Outka, 2014 SD 11

Mark Outka pled guilty to one count of simple assault (SDCL 22-18-1(4)) after an information whose caption included the notation "domestic abuse," although the body charged only simple assault and cited the statute.
Defense counsel acknowledged the "domestic abuse" notation at the preliminary hearing; Outka did not object to the caption before pleading guilty.
Magistrate sentenced Outka to 360 days (all suspended) and one year probation; Outka later sought to withdraw his guilty plea post-sentencing.
Magistrate denied the motion; circuit court affirmed. Outka appealed, raising defects in the information, constitutional challenges to SDCL 25-10-34, and claims that his plea was not knowing and voluntary.
The central factual point was undisputed: the assault involved a domestic relationship; the dispute focused on legal effect of the caption notation and adequacy of advisements.

Issue	Outka's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of information / "simple assault (domestic abuse)" caption	Caption created a nonexistent offense; information failed to charge an offense, depriving court of jurisdiction	Caption merely notes victim relationship; body charged simple assault and thus charged a public offense	Information was sufficient; caption does not change the charged crime; no jurisdictional defect
Failure to plead statutory references / SDCL 23A-6-4	Information should have referenced domestic-abuse statute; omission deprived court of jurisdiction	Defect was non-jurisdictional and waived by guilty plea (not raised before plea)	Defect was non-jurisdictional and waived by plea; claim forfeited
Constitutionality of SDCL 25-10-34 (facial)	Statute unconstitutionally delegates power to prosecutor; vague/overbroad	Legislature supplied definition and standards; statute collects notation only; not overbroad or vague as applied	Statute constitutional; not an improper delegation; not vague/overbroad on these facts
Voluntariness of plea / advisements (Boykin rights, max sentence, firearm consequence)	Plea involuntary: inadequate advisement on privilege against self-incrimination, max sentence, and future firearm-ownership consequences	Record shows Boykin advisement; max sentence previously advised; firearm restriction is collateral consequence	Plea was knowing and voluntary under totality of circumstances; failure to warn of firearm restriction was not a manifest injustice

State v. McColl, 807 N.W.2d 813 (S.D. 2011) (standard for withdrawing plea post-sentencing; manifest injustice test)
State v. Goodwin, 681 N.W.2d 847 (S.D. 2004) (discretion to allow plea withdrawal and when de novo review applies for constitutional claims)
Lohnes v. State, 344 N.W.2d 686 (S.D. 1984) (policy for stricter standard after sentencing to prevent plea-shopping)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (elements increasing penalty must be proven beyond reasonable doubt)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (defects in indictments are not jurisdictional)
United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009) (domestic relationship element for federal firearms prohibition need not be an element of predicate offense)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (ineffective assistance claim for failure to advise about deportation consequences)