*1 damages are frivolous punitive tion and attorney Barbara fees
and we award
$3,000. Justice, GILBERTSON, Chief ZINTER, KONENKAMP,
and, Justices,
MEIERHENRY, concur. SD 75 Dakota, Plaintiff
STATE of South Appellee, GOODWIN, Defendant
James Appellant.
No. 22574. Dakota.
Supreme Court South Aug. on Briefs 2003.
Considered
Reassigned Dec. 2003.
Decided June *2 Viken, Viken, Pechota,
Terry Pechota Dewell, Dako- Rapid City, South Leach & ta, Attorneys appellant. for defendant and (on MEIERHENRY, reassign- Justice ment). charged with James Goodwin under SDCL 22-18-
aggravated assault l.l(4).1 arraignment, At his he entered Subsequently, Goodwin guilty. of not in accordance changed his Af with the State. plea agreement with a filed a motion to sentencing, ter plea claiming that his withdraw his trial court denied voluntary. The appeals. motion. Goodwin We reverse.
FACTS Although of the details are some leading up to the dispute, in the events Patrick charged started when offense Yeoman, (James), Joshua James Jessica party and others were at a near Feickert City, in Dako- shopping Rapid mall South A ensued between ta. verbal altercation James, after which Feickert Feickert party. gave Yeoman Feickert left phone mall shopping ride to the to make party to the call. Yeoman returned had left Feickert. told James where she mall. returned to the Yeoman and James just party who had arrived mall, ap- At the followed them. James hitting him twice proached Feickert The two continued to face with his fist. ground. until was on the fight Feickert General, testimony that James con- Long, Attorney E. indicated Lawrence lay to hit and kick Feickert as he on Meyer, Attorney Ann Assistant Gener- tinued C. al, Pierre, Dakota, Defendant Goodwin who had Attorneys ground. for South up point to this fight not been plaintiff appellee. part: Assaults another with intent to commit 1. SDCL 22-18-1.1 states in bodily bodily injury which results in serious Any person who: injury assault. approached the fallen Feickert kicked A motion to withdraw a him in the face. Feickert was taken to the ... only be made before sentence is hospital jaw where it was imposed imposition determined his of sentence is sus- places. pended; was broken two Goodwin and correct injus- manifest *3 charged James were both for the tice a court incident. after sentence may set aside charges against a judgment James were eventual- of conviction and permit the ly dismissed. defendant to withdraw his plea. added). (emphasis Id. The stricter stan At arraignment, 19-year-old 3.]
[¶ dard for withdrawing a plea after sentenc Goodwin was advised of “ ing is ‘to prevent a defendant from test responded affirmatively if when asked he ing weight potential punishment, understood his following Over the and then withdrawing if he finds weeks, Goodwin’s negotiated plea counsel ” the sentence unexpectedly severe.’ State agreement Change with State. At the Lohnes, (S.D.1984) 686, 344 N.W.2d Hearing, of Plea eighty-nine days after the (quoting McKoy, United States v. 645 F.2d arraignment, pleaded guilty (C.A.D.C. 1981)). 1040 n. 3 Howev charge of aggravated assault. The er, if a defendant enters a plea “without judge accepted the plea subsequently full knowledge of the consequences and sentenced years Goodwin to five in the involuntarily” the trial court’s discretion South Dakota Penitentiary and ordered should favor withdrawal of guilty plea. him to full pay restitution of approximately Wahle, 521 Additionally $55,000.
direct appeal is afforded more intense scrutiny than the challenge byis a collat ISSUE eral corpus habeas action. State v. Moel the trial Whether court abused its discre- ler, (S.D.1994). 511 N.W.2d As tion in denying Goodwin’s motion to we said Moeller: guilty withdraw his plea to correct a Upon a direct appeal a conviction from injustice. manifest given must be all pre- defendant STANDARD OF REVIEW sumptions protections possible un- der However, our constitution. The decision to allow a the proceeding before the court in defendant to guilty plea withdraw a is a attack, nature of a collateral as in a solely matter within the discretion of the corpus habeas action or a challenge to trial court and is reviewed under an abuse validity predicate convictions, it Wahle, of discretion standard. State v. subject becomes to less scrutiny intense 136-37 We upon review. have said that the trial court’s discretion to allow withdrawal of a plea prior to Id. (emphasis part). added in Since Good- “sentencing should be liberally exercised win challenges the voluntariness of his in favor of withdrawal.” Id. at 137. How guilty plea by appeal, give direct we must ever, a stricter applied standard should be him presumptions “all the protections requests when a defendant to withdraw a possible under our constitution.” Id. after, guilty plea a sentence im has been DECISION
posed. Withdrawal of a after sen tencing may granted “to correct mani [¶ 5.] Goodwin claims the trial injustice.” fest SDCL 23A-27-11. The court should have him allowed to withdraw (1) provides: statute because his was not (2) §in ject exception entered his to the stated 23A-7- because he voluntary of, knowing consequences. and inform him and determine that plea without understands, following: aof determining voluntariness (1) charge The nature which stated plea, repeatedly we offered, mandatory mini- unless cannot stand “that a law, by any, penalty provided mum a free in some manner indicates record possible penalty pro- and the maximum waiver of the three consti intelligent law; by vided Boykin tutional mentioned —self- represented If the defendant is incrimination, jury tri confrontation and attorney, has the an the nature understanding al—and *4 represented by attorney every be plea.” Nachtigall of and the against him stage proceedings Erickson, 122, 128, 178 v. 85 S.D. N.W.2d and, appointed if necessary, one will be Holmes, (1970); 198, State v. him; represent to 51, (S.D.1978); v. Lodermeier (3) right plead That he to has the State, 163, 165 persist or to in that it has guilty Alabama, the Specifically, Boykin in made, already that he been and has a Supreme held that United States Court counsel, to right right assistance of must know understand his defendant and to confront and witnesses cross-examine against “privilege compulsory self-incrimi him, right not against and the to be nation”; “right by jury”; to and his himself; to compelled incriminate his to confront accusers.” 395 “right [his] (4) 243, 1712, guilty That or nolo con- pleads U.S. S.Ct. (1969). Further, tendere there not be a further trial L.Ed.2d-274 the defendant will kind, entering any by pleading guilty a so that or must know and understand that right of these nolo contendere he waives to a guilty constitutes a waiver 243-44, trial, right and Id. at 1709. As to confront cross- 89 S.Ct. him, Supreme against in States Court stated examine witnesses and United compelled “It is not to be to incriminate Raley, beyond dispute Parke v. himself; and guilty knowing must be and both 20, 28, voluntary.” 506 U.S. 113 S.Ct. guilty That if he pleads nolo con- 523, 121 L.Ed.2d tendere, him may ask ques- court tions about offense to which he has 11(c)) (Rule 23A-7-4 es- [¶ 7.] SDCL ques- and if he answers these pleaded, judge to fol- procedure tablishes for the record, oath, tions under in on knowing low that a to ensure counsel, presence answers 11(c) fairly voluntary. Rule him in against pros- later be used court straightforward on what the trial for perjury. ecution states, “Be- clearly should do. The statute Id. ... a court accepting fore personally
must address the defendant arraigned on When Goodwin was of, open ... him court inform 25, 2001, judge thoroughly October determine understands.” SDCL charges, penalties explained added). (emphasis 23A-7-4 The statute after rights. Eighty-nine days the ar- provides: raignment January on accepting plea changed guilty.
Before or nolo to When Goodwin appeared contendere a court must address before the court, personally guilty, sub- the trial court abbreviated open defendant significantly. The trial THE proceeding you COURT: How did do that? colloquy plea hearing court’s entire THE DEFENDANT: Joshua Feickert transpired as follows: and Pat James ground, were on the
THE COURT: This is the case of State I kicked Joshua Feickert the head. v. James Goodmn. This is the time set THE COURT: Did it injury cause plea going for a is the What him? to? THE I DEFENDANT: don’t think so. DEFENSE COUNSEL: To one count THE COURT: Does anybody know in the Information assault. injuries what the were? your THE COURT: Is that understand- DEFENSE COUNSEL: He sustained ing? injuries, and had to seek medical atten- Yes, THE DEFENDANT: sir. tion. He had a— THE plea agree- COURT: Is there a STATE’S ATTORNEY: He had a bro- ment, you other than what stated? jaw, your ken Honor. STATE’S ATTORNEY: The Defendant THE COURT: He sustained broken plead guilty will aggra- to one count of jaw. I accept will being as *5 vated assault. The Defendant will be given freely voluntarily, and and find responsible prose- for all the costs of the that there is a factual plea. basis for the cution and his share of restitution We will set the matter for sentencing on time of sentencing. accept State will March 4th at 9:00 I o’clock. want a the recommendations set forth in the presentence done also. presentence, and otherwise will remain (1) judge The trial asked Goodwin what his silent. As far as the amount of incarcer- (2) was, whether he understood that ation, penitentiary time would be our he was entering charge to the recommendation, but we would the leave assault, (3) whether there was actual amount up Judge. of time to the (4) agreement, whether he under- The will penitentiary, State recommend stood the plea agreement, terms specific but no amount. op- State will anyone threatened, whether pose a suspended imposition. promised coerced or him anything get to THE your that COURT: Is understand- him to enter the ing agreement, Mr. Goodwin? significant [¶ What is here is 9.] Yes, THE DEFENDANT: sir. judge what the trial did not ask Goodwin. THE you then, COURT: I will ask to He does not ask him whether he under charge aggravated assault, what giving up right stood he was his ato your plea, guilty is or not guilty? trial, right his to confront the witnesses THE Guilty. DEFENDANT: him against and his in against self anyone threatened, THE COURT: Has crimination. judge The also does not reit coerced or promised you anything, other possible erate the penalties that could be you than what have heard here in open imposed. questions The and answers at Court, get you to plea? to enter this the time the defendant entered his No, THE DEFENDANT: sir. plea failed to responses elicit from which THE says you COURT: It here that judge could determine whether Good Feickert; assaulted a Joshua is cor- win “intelligently” “knowingly” or waived rect? fact, In judge did not Yes, THE specifically DEFENDANT: sir. conclude the were “intel- The fact “knowingly” mere waived. ligently” Goodwin, judge explained threat- anyone “Has same judge asked not arraignment sufficient ened, you anything, detail promised coerced determining that Goodwin made here alone you have heard other than what intelligent waiver at Court, plea?” to enter this free get you open “the answers, “No, days must look to Although sir.” later. We ascertaining of of the circumstances when judge no reference the waiver made knowingly was made judge nevertheless concluded whether rights, Lashwood, voluntarily.” being State v. “accept the as would he (S.D.1986). examining voluntarily.” A defen- freely and N.W.2d given the circumstances” “totality he has not forced we answer that been dant’s following taken into consideration the fac pleading guilty into does or coerced age; prior full crimi mean he understands the tors: defendant’s necessarily up record; represented by gives he nal whether he ramification counsel; plea agree of a possible penalties the existence by pleading guilty or ment; Solem, why it is as Weiker N.W.2d important, That is faces. stated, (S.D.1994); trial time ad for the between previously we have entering a accepting visement of State, by ‘canvassing guilty. Clark v. “actively participate ” will, therefore, Nachtigall, 85 919 We exam matter with accused.’ they apply each of these as at 201. “The ine factors S.D. at its court be able to determine from Goodwin. must has made a own record that the accused *6 in The first factor the anal intelligent of his constitu-
free and waiver age the ysis young Age is of defendant. as accept- guilty a is tional maturity a factor relates to Goodwin’s Sutton, ed.” v. 317 N.W.2d State experience upon and bears the determina voluntary.2 of his tion whether canvassing of importance The years age facing of his Goodwin was guilty the he enters a defendant when just felony.3 graduated first He had from juncture it that the is For is at this vital. high school and still lived at home his with rights and needs defendant waives his Further, the mother. none of court’s plea. his consequences the of understand plea hearing questions explored at the procedure accepting the Shortcutting maturity experience. Goodwin’s a the guilty plea question leaves about 13.] and understand- The second factor which enters [¶ defendant’s mental state consistently analysis the vol- ing. why That is courts have into whether is emphasized untary prior the is lack of a criminal importance of the Goodwin’s experience in or- had dialogue prior the defendant record. Goodwin court’s with system that the which satisfy legal der for the court itself with from to draw factor, knowledge understanding. what is at stake This defendant understands mitigates against him hav- relinquishing. age, and the as with his is only age determining years at the Age 2. in 3. Goodwin was also factor voluntarily given. alleged confession was It remains time of the assault. age a factor even if confessor is over the Darby, majority. SD of ¶ See State v. 319. intelligent The fourth ing [¶ made a free waiver factor 15.] be is the agree- considered existence of his ment. plea bargain We considered a factor in [¶ The third 14.] Clark in determining the defendant un- analysis rep legal of the circumstances consequences derstood the his legal resentation. It is assumed that coun plea. 294 N.W.2d at Specifically, of a explained sel has prosecutor Clark knew “that would guilty plea to a defendant. Henderson years,” recommend sentence of 10 Id. Cf. 637, 647, Morgan, 426 U.S. 96 S.Ct. Along agreement, with other fac- (1976) (discuss 2253, 2258, weighed against tors claim. L.Ed.2d 108 Clark’s He old, twenty-eight years had previously usually has ing that it is assumed counsel felony, been convicted of a adequately explained the nature of the offense and represented by counsel “was not func- admitted). be what will have to Goodwin blindly tioning within the criminal court support claims in affidavit in of his < system.” Id. motion to withdraw The plea agreement' with Good- attorney explained not conse by win as attorney recited State’s quences plea hearing was as follows: entering my states: “Prior to plead guilty The Defendant will to one January not on or about I was count of The assault. De- rights by my attorney ... any advised of responsible fendant will be for all the witnesses, to confront and cross examine prosecution costs of the and his share of to in compelled and the not restitution at sentencing. time of I myself. criminate also was not advised accept State will the recommendations by those Court and did presentence, set forth and other- ... plea hearing waive those wise remain As far as will silent. appears Here held this case.” incarceration, penitentiary amount hearing. During with counsel at the recommendation, time would be our hearing, very is of abbreviated little we would leave the actual amount of fered or said counsel. up Judge. time The State will *7 trial court does not ask counsel Goodwin’s specific no penitentiary, recommend nor any does offer information counsel suspended State will a oppose amount. about whether he had discussed conse the imposition. quences of with or voluntariness the asked, your The court then “Is that under- hearing, Goodwin. At the attor standing agreement,.Mr. of the Goodwin?” ney only speaks twice: once to indicate the answered, “Yes, To which Goodwin sir.” charge to which Goodwin will and plead little This short recitation offers the in a question second to the answer about analysis of whether Goodwin’s injury victim’s which he is unable to finish specific and unlike the voluntary, Clark attorney the answering because State’s in term stated. of the sentence was not The Also, recently terrupts him. this Court does, however, indicate that agreement duty rights said that to explain these “[t]he for responsible would be “his Goodwin belongs on the to the trial and record court claims share of restitution.” Goodwin not attorney.” to the defendant’s v. State pay part to of expected required to Nikolaev, 142, ¶ 7, N.W.2d 2000 SD 619 James, and was also the restitution who 244, State, 245 v. (citing Croan 295 N.W.2d The charged, pay would the rest. State (S.D.1980)). James and charges against 729 dismissed the'
854
Stacey,
voluntarily
the
them.
In
the
pay
to
waived
Id.
court ordered Goodwin
the trial
extensively questioned
court
the de
as to restitu-
circuit
claims
full amount. Goodwin
plea.
on
of the
not followed fendant
the voluntariness
plea agreement was
tion the
him to
442. In
case how
of
349 N.W.2d at
another
inequity
requiring
the
and that
ever,
claim
there
to his
was reversed because
more than his share adds
pay
day lapse
judge
a 57
different
injustice.
manifest
of
at
In re Gar
presided
plea hearing.
totality
Finally,
ritsen,
376 N.W.2d
577-78
lapse
the time
be
analysis
circumstances
Goodwin,
days had elapsed
For
between
ar
rights
explanation
tween
arraignment
guilty plea
long
guilty plea is consid
raignment and the
—far
hours,
days,
days.
than 5
or 30
er
in this case
This is
relevant factor
ered.
Additionally,
challenge
ap
his
is on direct
told
rights,
his
Goodwin
because
requires
scrutiny
which
more
peal
intense
charge,
and the maximum
nature of
challenge.
trial court
than
habeas
The
not
arraignment
at
but was
sentence
his
repeat
any
not
make
reference to
did
nor
specifical
at
nor.
re-advised
his
explanation
charges, penalty
of the
or
concerning the waiver
ly canvassed
rights
given
which he had
to Goodwin 89
consequences
rights
those
arraignment.
days earlier at the
Whether
Although
previously
we have
determined
the defendant remembered the recitation
required
repeat
that a court
not be
rights
or understood that he waived
rights and
at
rights by entering
those
judge
hearing
provided
the same
apparent
from the
Nor
record.
does
arraignment,
de
explanation at the
much
faculty
the record
his intellectual
reveal
on the circumstances of the individ
pends
recall
understand.
State,
Singletary
ual case.
88 S.D.
nineteen-year-old
charged
Clark,
A
(1975);
294 N.W.2d
N.W.2d
felony
expe-
having
prior
with serious
Goodwin’s motion
denying
with
rience
criminal court should be af-
plea,
withdraw
statutory
forded
constitutional and
on the fact
that he had advised
relied
is entitled
the trial
arraignment.
at
of his
least,
judge,
meaningfully
canvass him
However,
signifi
the time frame here is
to determine
he understands the
arraignment explana
cant.
closer
waiving
the full conse-
likely
tion is to the
the more
entering
quences
guilty plea. The
the defendant remembers the recitation
record does not show that
know-
allowed, in
prior
Our
cases have
ingly
voluntarily
waived
time
of five
challenges,
frames
habeas
upon
of the circum-
based
Singletary,
hours
S.D.
stances. The trial court
its discre-
abused
424;
Clark,
days
*8
by not allowing
tion
Goodwin to withdraw
(discussed
days in
supra);
916
and 30
injus-
guilty plea
to correct manifest
(S.D.1984).
State,
Stacey v.
856 to re- matter if there is a failure each of of law adequately and advised of fully was rights 89 advise defendants of their certain by Judge Trimble those matters following arraignment.4 Moreover, days their there no dis more is arraignment. unsup- this rule is I dissent because new affirmatively indicated that Goodwin pute I be- ported by also dissent rights precedent. understood his record he on the that cause, required the reviewed under Finally, dispute there is no when that time. standards,” “objective does not this record expressly that Judge Trimble found plea was change reflect of plea, that Goodwin’s subsequent entered later, “freely voluntarily” involuntary. and days was and facts given. totality Given those the circum- Under of narrow, is finding, inquiry pur- our stances, plea, court’s a of entered be review plea agreement, we should constrained suant to a written under the abuse of discre finding court’s with the of be entered assistance ¶ That requires standard. Id. days tion ad- after the initial counsel 89 the trial court that we determine whether visement of an pur its “to end or exercised discretion have four Our cases [¶ established 26.] justified by, clearly against, not pose this apply considering rules when that we (quoting Id. and evidence.” State reason First, enters issue. when defendant (S.D. 96, 100 Engelmann, v. 541 N.W.2d guilty knowledge full of the plea without 1995)). Considering the evidence that is so, doing court will consequences of record, abuse of no such discretion in this apply objective to determine an standard occurred. mistaken was impression defendant’s however, Remarkably, justified, rendering this reasonably thereby ¶ finding, involuntary. (citing the trial court’s Id. plea Court overturns 101). Second, Engelmann, mis- 541 N.W.2d at upon any evidence necessary to given, he was it is not re-advise defendants understood the of conjecture that the must their constitutional between simply upon sentencing time time involuntary because and the of have been 19, record, and the had and 89 the is before same no criminal he was record shows defendant days expired between time conse- knowledge and the time he of those and the advised of his (the In re quences Court no when entered. changed gives (S.D.1985) Garritsen, 575, inconsequential 376 N.W.2d weight apparently State, (citing represented by Clark v. facts Goodwin was (S.D.1980)). Third, if question is a proceedings counsel these there throughout voluntariness, test is plea pursuant “[t]he to a fundamental changed an an intelli- plea agreement indicating written whether gent act done with sufficient awareness eight-year penitentiary sentence would be likely we con- requested). Consequently, relevant circumstances now Class, sequences.” there is 1998 SD allega- rule that new even Hofer ¶ (citations involuntary as omit- tion that a a matter ted). fact, knowingly, Finally, determining whether cannot knowingly voluntarily voluntarily given intelligently, as circumstances, days pass acknowledges days can never 4. The Court that 30 however, acceptable. Apparently, even under muster. objective utilizing standard *10 entered, totality Judge we look at the of the Trimble informed Goodwin of his Lohnes, circumstances. State v. 344 constitutional right to confront and cross- 686, him, examine the against witnesses right by jury, to trial right and the against examining self-incrimination by as mandated Nachti circumstances, begin we should with the Erickson, gall v. 85 S.D. fact that Goodwin was first advised of his Boykin Alabama, appearance at his initial on the 238, 243-44, U.S. 89 S.Ct. charge assault. appeared He (1969).5 L.Ed.2d Judge 279-80 Trim- a magistrate, before was advised of his ble also advised Goodwin of the additional rights, signed a written acknowledge- statutory rights outlined in SDCL 23A-7-4 understanding ment of his those (South equivalent Dakota’s of Fed. R. acknowledgement, In that written Goodwin 11(c)).6 Crim. P. Goodwin stated that he affirmatively indicated that he understood understood his constitutional and statutory following rights: rights, he understood the nature of the right 1. to counsel charges and the maximum penalty, and he right speedy public by 2. to an entered a of not guilty. attorney His impartial jury also informed the court that negotia presumption prov- 3. of innocence until taking tions were place. en guilty beyond a reasonable doubt A plea agreement was subse- right compulsory process 4. quently reached. It was an “open” plea 5. right to confront and cross-examine agreement. agreement “open” was witnesses because the “amount of incarceration in right against 6. self-incrimination penitentiary” and “[Goodwin’s] share 7. a right preliminary hearing (spe- of restitution” were left to be determined cifically advising that this was an addi- by “as ordered (Emphasis the Court.” added.) safeguard you tional “to make sure are not being compelled yourself to defend 22, 2002, January [¶ 30.] On against a false or charge”). unfounded appeared with counsel Judge before Trim- “yes” Goodwin answered question ble to in accordance with you
“do rights?” understand these More- negotiated plea agreement. Although over, signed this form and retained rights, he was not re-advised of Judge counsel. inquired Trimble whether again voluntary
[¶28.] Goodwin was
advised of
a factual basis existed for
by
his rights
Judge Trimble at
arraign-
Judge
it.
Trimble
inquired
first
ment. On
ap-
October
voluntary,
stating,
anyone
“Has
peared
Judge
threatened,
Trimble with counsel.
promised you any-
coerced or
Boykin
guilty plea
only
holds that a
valid
right
6. The other advisement included: the
if a
"freely
defendant is shown to have
represented by
attorney;
right
be
to be
intelligently
right
waived his constitutional
present
stages
proceedings;
at all
against
confront and cross-examine witnesses
right
guilty;
to enter a
the fact that if a
him,
waived his constitutional
to trial
entered,
all of his
would
jury,
privilege
and waived his constitutional
waived;
charge
and the nature of the
Garritsen,
against self-incrimination.”
assault,
felony aggravated
including its maxi-
(quoting Boykin,
N.W.2d at 577
395 U.S. at
penalty.
mum
243-44,
1712-13,
thing, other here, you you if Court, you your rights to this with get to enter open here “No, difficulty me or under- responded, any hearing sir.” have Goodwin plea?” basis, have feel standing any questions, to factual Goodwin me or respect With any in the head stop Feickert free me at time. Mr. Good- kicking admitted to However, win, ground. right -represented on the you he was to be while if the kick caused pro- court attorney stages asked at all Feickert, “I replied to injury you. you are ceedings against And here Consequently, the court today. think so.” represented by don’t Mr. here Speck further, asking, anybody “Does inquired Any money spent court-appointed for injuries were?” Goodwin’s know what against any fees is bill or a lien counsel Attorney respond- attorney and the State’s you own. property ed, jaw, your Hon- “He had a ... broken until presumed You are innocent then determined that Judge or.” Trimble beyond a rea- guilt State has established and that a factual voluntary was to doubt. You are entitled sonable ulti- plea. existed for the court basis jury jury composed trial of a selected mately accepted ordered County, Pennington from here pre-sentence investigation. you charged. in which A county are April On jury jurors, is a trial' trial to whose years penitentiary to in the sentenced five unanimous, is, must decision be to restitution in the full pay and ordered jury all deter- agreed upon by 12. The expenses of the victim’s medical amount facts, they guilt determine or mines time, ($55,149.17). At that Goodwin raised may, wish, you You select innocence. to or objections the sentence the resti- no A a court trial. court trial is a to tution, he expressed misunder- judge alone. The determines However, of his standing approxi- inno- guilt and determines or facts sentenced, days being mately 50 after he entirely are free to cence. You choose his guilty plea. filed a motion to withdraw trial or a you jury whether want court then, allege Even Goodwin did not trial. In- factually, involuntary. entitled to present You are all stead, alleged pre- that his you, stages proceedings against involuntary sumptively because he had not your in person through and either during been re-advised of pre- attorney to the witnesses confront plea hearing. It against you by sented the State. considering In this it allegation, your these wit- right to cross-examine important to Trim- Judge reiterate any questions or ask them con- nesses arraignment specif- ble’s advisement at the testimony they give against cerning ically included the that this Court you. record, now concludes are absent from the trial, wit- right right subpoena to a You have a to right i.e.: him, testify against to come into on confront witnesses nesses Court incrimination, your self This means that there is against penalties behalf. you your imposed, help present that could be side the conse- someone fact, situation, they ordered quences the “record can be know. clearly appear they They evidence” reflects that and tell what those they given: say, told what to can were cannot be appear they be told to and tell what do not wish to contest charge *12 particular know against about situation. you. It allows the State to come forward on filed, the Indictment addition, you In right against have substantiate it with the evidence that This means that self-incrimination. they though have. Even there not a you cannot to testify be forced or an- is. guilt, you determination of still any face a questions any swer about fact or statutory maximum fine or criminal sentence. matter that is at issue in the pending against you. case I want to guilty by Pleas of not reason of men- you caution that anything you say that tal illness and mentally but ill are can and against you will be used significant in that if it specific takes a subsequent hearings or proceedings. mental intent to commit the offense and You have an right you absolute to remain are to form unable that intent at the time, silent. Neither the State nor the you Court may have a defense or a par- can you ever on the fact that tial defense to the comment or charges charge questions. have not testified or answered against you. filed There are also provi- It not an you inference of that sions for psychiatric and psychological have refused to do so. care and counseling in addition to a stat- Goodwin, maximum fine or sentence. you utory
Mr. do understand your rights? may It well be that there are lesser included Yes, involved in THE DEFENDANT: sir. main offenses charges against you. signifi- THE COURT: In addition to filed rights cance a lesser included is that of, I you you that have advised of have offense maximum, it carries a smaller or pleas you. several available First of fine sentence than the charge with you which all, you may enter a plea guilty. of are You ivould want to discuss This is a denial charge charges or faced. of your attorney with significance against you. It protects every each and of any lesser included your one statutory constitutional and offense. of addition, In a question of I restitution you have advised of develop finding guilt. there is a of puts the State to its proof. any must You resolve issues surround- wish, may, you You enter a of ing the amount prior of restitution guilty. A your on of behalf sentencing, or I you would deem that unqualified is an you admission that your right. waived did in commit the fact offense of- n Goodwin, you Mr. charged are with you with which have been fenses aggravated assault. The charge is that charged. importantly, Most it is a waiv- day on the 26th May year, this in this giving er or a top every each and one of county, Pennington, you assaulted I have discussed with Feickert, a Joshua with the intent you, specifically, your right to a bodily trial, injury, commit ivhich resulted in your right the wit- confront injury.. serious bodily This carries a against you, your nesses penalty years, to 15 up against you en- and/or self-incrimination. If $15,000 you Do understand what guilty, you ter a will come fine. you charged are with and what sentencing. Court for penalty is? maximum addition, pleas there are several THE DEFENDANT: Yes. allowed statute. A of nolo con- tendere by you you statement THE COURT: What’s on this? -, 1379, 1389, 158L.Ed.2d 209 124 S.Ct. guilty. Not
THE DEFENDANT: Ruiz, (quoting United States added.) Notwithstanding this (Emphasis 622, 629, 122 153 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. affirmative and Goodwin’s record evidence Illinois, (2002); Patterson v. U.S. understood acknowledgment 261). L.Ed.2d 108 S.Ct. now rights, he statutory and constitutional Clearly, pro the two advisements him to re-advise that the failure contends in this case the constitution vided satisfied hear- of those *13 required by Boykin. al minimum 23A-7-4 and rendered ing violated SDCL involuntary. Moreover, Goodwin’s advise- objectively ment of sufficient Judge initial advise- Trimble’s only requires SDCL 23A-7-4 that however, because was, clearly adequate ment a “before” defen- place an advisement take protec- the and satisfy presumptions all of certainly is There is accepted. dant’s Al- by required our Constitutions. tions requirement line that an bright no rule or requires knowing a though Boykin place must take a always advisement sec- waiver, Boykin require not intelligent does request- when a is ond time the 89-day rule that the re-advisement contrary, a defendant. On the ed today. remem- adopts It must be Court who, case, fully in judge as this canvasses Boykin in which involved case bered arraignment at has ad- a defendant the no record that the defendant there was accepting defendant vised a advised of his constitutional was ever meaning of this statute. The in- within Consequently, merely rights. Boykin whether, in question cases is real such records. pleas validated based on silent circumstances, under the is “Presuming waiver a silent record from Id., unknowing involuntary is either at 89 impermissible.” 395 U.S. objective judged by standards. when S.Ct. at 1712. ¶ Thielsen, 17, 22, 2004 SD 675 at N.W.2d Here, however, the re- 34.] [¶ recorcl 434. of, and that Goodwin advised veals affirmatively knowledge bright There no line re-ad- indicated his is understanding only of his on two occa- rule because SDCL 23A-7-4 visement Therefore, all giving requires 'compliance.” even Goodwin “substantial State sions. ¶ Richards, 18, 8, 2002 640 presumptions protections possible v. SD N.W.2d Nikolaev, Constitution, (citing affir- 2000 under our this record 482 State v. SD ¶ 246). matively consti- 619 required reflects N.W.2d There- fore, In- held protections specifically tutional afforded. this Court has were deed, decision, Supreme necessary a recent Court is to readvise defen- “[i]t closely rights immediately prior related the waiver of of his area of dant plea hearings, at confirms if the record shows the pleading counsel knowledge the law such of his ordinarily considers defendant knowing, when intelligent, waivers and sufficient en- Garritsen, fully “if the defendant understands 376 N.W.2d tered[.]” likely reason, nature of the it would For the same this Court has re- and how ... apply general upheld guilty pleas circumstances similar where peatedly judge if it prevail [and the State the same informed and canvassed that] [] defendant, time provided accepted shows that the information and at a later mini- rights. defendant satisfied the constitutional without re-advisement — -, State, Tovar, Singletary mum.” v. v. 88 S.D. U.S. See Iowa against him age “mitigates and his system a trial (upholding intelligent waiver having made a free acceptance of court’s However, recanvassed); though even rights.” of his had not been defendant assault, (same); time of the Stacey v. was 19 at the Clark, 294 N.W.2d (same). (S.D.1984) adversely affect his “this cannot be said State, 349 N.W.2d involved, age of minori- since he was over long as same As 718, 721 Bolger, v. 332 N.W.2d ty.” record to State may look to its entire court trial (S.D.1983). Furthermore, “[t]here compliance with SDCL verify substantial any- Boykin [was] in the record indication and the advisement 23A-7-4 person than a of at least aver- Quist thing 486 N.W.2d other Leapley, v. See comprehension.” (S.D.1992). intelligence simply age rule is State, 777, Gregory to deter- court must be able “[t]he fact, claims to accused that the from its own record mine “above-average student.” intelligent waiver have been a free and *14 has made the fact that upon then relies guilty a This Court rights before constitutional his (citations prior no criminal record. 267 Id. at accepted.” However, omitted). represented by counsel he was change of and the arraignment at both made that deter- Judge Trimble [¶ 37.] significant fact to hearings, highly record, specific and his from the mination apparent impor- gives this Court which “given that Goodwin’s was finding was tance. Therefore, we voluntarily.” freely and significantly, probably But most 39.] warning [¶ prior heed to our pay should entering after changed his Court, appellate func- Goodwin acting our “this those cir- us, agreement. Under into the cold ... record tion on cumstances, held that specifically we insight into the greater presume cannot say hardly can be heard a defendant ‘understanding of his defendant’s knowing the guilty without pleaded than that of ... plea: consequences of full considered this court] [has] [trial ” Moeller, 511 guilty, case.’ State appellant pleaded fact that The (S.D.1994) guilty pleas (holding that arrangement 808 plea bargain to a pursuant volun- by Moeller were previously attorney, entered further prosecuting with the (quoting knowing) tary, intelligent, made guilty plea was that his establishes Dutton, 92 S.Ct. Boyd v. U.S. conse- knowledge of its full with J., (White, counsel, L.Ed.2d ap- Equipped .... with quences dissenting)). say heard to hardly can pellant knowing the without pleaded guilty however, Court, declines This consequences thereof. full Moreover, in exam- follow this admonition. Clark, add- (emphasis at 920 plea, this this circumstances of ining the ed). distinguish attempts to The Court criminal age, prior only upon relies Court Clark, the unlike by stating that advisements Clark and time between history, sentence were of Goodwin’s specific terms must have been determining that the Here, incorrect. The Court is not stated. misapplies oth- involuntary. analysis This sent to Good- agreement, the written totality of all factors and the important er plea, stated well before objective win judged by circumstances when in the incarceration that “the amount first determines The Court standards. Judge. up to penitentiary [was] experience lack of with that Goodwin’s penitentiary, quences of pleading guilty.9 State will recommend time.” That letter also specific but no failure to assert factual lack of knowl- “oppose indicated that the State would edge statutory of his constitutional and of sentence ... but suspended imposition rights, coupled explic- with the trial court’s year nothing eight could see short of it recitation of those arraign- added.) Clearly, (Emphasis sentence.” specific finding ment and its that the plea any Goodwin could not have had illusions voluntary, undercuts this as- Court’s lengthy penitentiary about the sentence he sertion that the record fails to indicate that facing. Goodwin had the requisite knowledge of Finally, contrary majority to the and the of a amount opinion, the of time between the arraignment and the Finally, Court’s reliance Garritsen, excessive. See 376 N.W.2d at upon the absence of record evidence to (noting that upheld guilty “we have support a finding voluntary plea of a pleas where the same informed and misplaced cases like this where there is once, canvassed the defendant and then record rights having evidence been accepted later plea without read- cases, given. In such defendant, defendant must vising the where the lapse time ... seek to days, plea contending was five hours and ... withdraw his (internal omitted)).7 days.” citations he misunderstood rights, those and the *15 record must show that some circumstances Despite our cases permitting reasonably justified the defendant’s mis- pleas without a rights, re-advisement of impression. taken plea the Court contends that Goodwin’s of involuntary. must be deemed How- Where the record that “circum- shows ever, reviewing opinion, Court’s it they stances as existed at the time of the must not that be lost neither Goodwin nor guilty plea, judged by objective stan- (in his trial support counsel8 testified of dards, reasonably justified his mistaken plea) the motion to that withdraw fac- impression,” a defendant must be held tually involuntary was because have entered his full without Goodwin failed to understand his knowledge consequences in- and This, of plea. of voluntarily. course, he could not do because at his Wahle, (S.D. State v. arraignment, Judge Goodwin told Trimble 1994) Crusco, (citing United States v. understood his constitutional and (3d statutory rights, offense, Cir.1976)); Thielsen, F.2d nature 24-25 ¶ its penalty, (re maximum and the conse- 2004 SD at N.W.2d Although 7. the Court cites Garritsen for the because his blow to the victim's head was not excessive, proposition day delay that a 57 jaw. blow that fractured the victim’s Al- inapposite. that case is The Garritsen though passing there awas reference to judge presid- was reversed because a (Rule 11), different argu- SDCL 23A-7-4 there was no plea hearing. ed at the Id. involuntary ment that his was because he failed to understand his constitutional and Appellate represent 8. counsel did not Good- (the statutory rights only exception being a win until the motion to withdraw his belated assertion that he did not understand argument felony 9. the difference Goodwin limited his at between and misde- the with- meanor; plea hearing clearly drawal of to the an assertion that he assertion that is refuted simply was not by assault arraignment). the record at evidence voluntari the review quiring SD 74 standards). objective by judged ness LADSON, Rocky Plaintiff Appellee, and record, Here, judged standards, does not indicate by objective statutory misunderstood his Leigh BPM and CORPORATION contrary, On constitutional Patten, Patten, Agnes a/k/a of the circumstances reveals Appellants. Defendants act intelligent Goodwin’s No. 23035. awareness of the rele done with sufficient likely conse
vant circumstances Supreme Dakota. Court of South 58, ¶ 26, 1998 SD quences. Hofer, 26, 2004. April Considered on Briefs Indeed, who at 588. Decided June throughout pro these observed Goodwin found Goodwin’s ceedings specifically freely voluntarily.” “given
And, subsequent withdrawal Trimble the fact Judge reiterated
hearing, fully advised Goodwin of Therefore, arraignment. we precedent Singletary, our
should follow
Clark, and decline Stacey, to reverse a third
plea simply because advisement certainly, given. We should perspective,
from appellate decline our into actu insight greater
divine of his understanding
al *16 court from
guilty than the trial ascertained personal
its interaction with Goodwin Moeller, proceedings. these
throughout at 808. dissent. I therefore GILBERTSON, Justice, Chief
joins this dissent.