State v. Left Hand Bull

South Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Left Hand Bull

288 N.W.2d 83, 1980 S.D. LEXIS 252

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 6, 1980

DocketNo. 12814

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 N.W.2d 83 (State v. Left Hand Bull) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Left Hand Bull, 288 N.W.2d 83, 1980 S.D. LEXIS 252 (S.D. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

MORGAN, Justice.

Appellant claims that the trial judge abused his discretion when he approved a plea arrangement and imposed the maximum sentence agreed to under the arrangement. We disagree and affirm the trial court.

Appellant was charged with two counts of rape and one count as an habitual offender. A plea bargain was struck whereby appellant would plead guilty to first-degree rape and the other two charges would be dismissed. The State would recommend a twenty-year sentence,¹ with the right reserved to appellant or his counsel to argue for a lesser term. There was also provision for a presentence report and a psychiatric evaluation. The plea bargain arrangement conformed to our requirements set out in State v. Doherty, 261 N.W.2d 677 (S.D.1978).

At the sentencing, after hearing a lengthy plea from defense counsel for a shorter term of incarceration, the trial judge nevertheless imposed the twenty-year maximum sentence provided by the agreement, with credit for time spent in the county jail awaiting disposition of the case. Appropriate orders of dismissal on the other counts were entered as agreed.

Appellant grounds his argument on a vague claim of lack of due process alluded to by this court in State v. Goodale, 86 S.D. 458, 198 N.W.2d 44 (1972). His contention is frivolous. Goodale is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as Goodale was not sentenced under a plea bargain agreement; nor does [84]*84appellant cite any other case authority to support his claim. He does not attack the plea bargain. He does not even suggest that he be permitted to withdraw his plea and stand trial on all three counts.² He does not complain that the bargain was tainted in any manner; that he was incompetent, under duress, or counseled inadequately. He simply wants all the fruits of his bargain without compliance on his part.

Lacking any such showing, he cannot be heard to complain that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the maximum sentence which appellant himself had freely and voluntarily agreed to. We therefore affirm the action of the trial court.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MORGAN, Justice.

Appellant claims that the trial judge abused his discretion when he approved a plea arrangement and imposed the maximum sentence agreed to under the arrangement. We disagree and affirm the trial court.

Appellant was charged with two counts of rape and one count as an habitual offender. A plea bargain was struck whereby appellant would plead guilty to first-degree rape and the other two charges would be dismissed. The State would recommend a twenty-year sentence,¹ with the right reserved to appellant or his counsel to argue for a lesser term. There was also provision for a presentence report and a psychiatric evaluation. The plea bargain arrangement conformed to our requirements set out in State v. Doherty, 261 N.W.2d 677 (S.D.1978).

At the sentencing, after hearing a lengthy plea from defense counsel for a shorter term of incarceration, the trial judge nevertheless imposed the twenty-year maximum sentence provided by the agreement, with credit for time spent in the county jail awaiting disposition of the case. Appropriate orders of dismissal on the other counts were entered as agreed.

Appellant grounds his argument on a vague claim of lack of due process alluded to by this court in State v. Goodale, 86 S.D. 458, 198 N.W.2d 44 (1972). His contention is frivolous. Goodale is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as Goodale was not sentenced under a plea bargain agreement; nor does [84]*84appellant cite any other case authority to support his claim. He does not attack the plea bargain. He does not even suggest that he be permitted to withdraw his plea and stand trial on all three counts.² He does not complain that the bargain was tainted in any manner; that he was incompetent, under duress, or counseled inadequately. He simply wants all the fruits of his bargain without compliance on his part.

Lacking any such showing, he cannot be heard to complain that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the maximum sentence which appellant himself had freely and voluntarily agreed to. We therefore affirm the action of the trial court.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 N.W.2d 83, 1980 S.D. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-left-hand-bull-sd-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack