State v. Schmidt, 2012 SD 77

Schmidt pled guilty but mentally ill to ten counts of grand theft under a plea agreement; remaining charges were dismissed; she moved to withdraw the pleas prior to sentencing, which the court denied.
She was charged with ten grand-theft counts, three identity-theft counts, and sixty-seven forgery counts; habitual-offender information was filed.
A competency/forensic evaluation found no thought disorder but noted anxiety; Schmidt began anti-anxiety treatment the day before sentencing.
Schmidt’s embezzlement spanned years, totaling over $224,000; dozens of forged checks and unpaid payroll taxes caused IRS liens of about $62,551.
The circuit court conducted a sentencing hearing, reviewed a presentence investigation (PSI), and sentenced Schmidt to ten years on Counts I–IX concurrent and ten years on Count X consecutive.
The State appeals the denial of withdrawal, the PSI disclosure issue, the ineffective-assistance claim, and the Eighth Amendment sentence challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying withdrawal of guilty-pleas.	Schmidt’s mental state at entry warranted withdrawal.	No tenable reason; pleas entered knowingly and voluntarily.	No abuse of discretion; no tenable reason shown.
Whether due process was violated by not allowing review of the entire PSI.	Defendant lacked full PSI access for meaningful commentary.	Access to PSI provided; no required full review.	Not a due-process violation; no prejudice shown.
Whether Schmidt received ineffective assistance of counsel.	Counsel deficient in motion conduct and PSI handling.	Record insufficient for direct-review defense; habeas preferred.	Denied on direct appeal; record insufficient for review.
Whether Schmidt's sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.	Twenty-year total sentence excessive given circumstances.	Sentence within statutory limits and with substantial deference.	Not grossly disproportionate; affirmed.

State v. Bailey, 546 N.W.2d 387 (S.D. 1996) (liberal consideration of withdrawal before sentencing but no automatic right)
Grosh, 387 N.W.2d 503 (S.D. 1986) (factors for withdrawing a guilty plea; not exclusive)
Brakeall v. Weber, 668 N.W.2d 79 (S.D. 2003) (SDCL 23A-27-7 disclosure and prejudice analysis; remedy not automatic)
State v. Olson, 816 N.W.2d 842 (S.D. 2012) (standard for reviewing pre-sentence withdrawal and proportionality)
State v. Thielsen, 675 N.W.2d 429 (S.D. 2004) (burden on defendant to show tenable reason for withdrawal)