State v. Steinmetz, s. 11644
Decision Date | 16 December 1976 |
Docket Number | 11645,Nos. 11644,s. 11644 |
Citation | 247 N.W.2d 690 |
Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Larry Edward STEINMETZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Earl R. Mettler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent; William J. Janklow, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.
Terry L. Pechota, Fort Thompson, T. Michael Carter, Nripendra N. Singh, Eagle Butte, for defendant and appellant.
Defendant pleaded guilty to charges of grand larceny and third degree forgery and was sentenced to serve not less than two nor more than five years in the state penitentiary on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in not imposing sentence in accordance with a plea bargain reached between defendant and the state and in not permitting defendant to withdraw his guilty plea after sentence was pronounced. We affirm.
When defendant appeared for arraignment before the circuit court, it developed that he had not been represented by counsel at the time he waived preliminary hearing on the two felony charges. Consequently, at the request of defendant's court appointed counsel the trial court ordered the matter remanded to the district county court for a preliminary hearing on both charges. Immediately after the trial court announced this ruling from the bench, defendant's counsel stated that a plea bargain agreement had been reached with the state's attorney whereby defendant would plead guilty to the two charges and would be put on probation for two years and be required to pay the costs of the criminal action and make restitution to the victims of the offenses. In response to counsel's request that the court make a commitment to abide by the terms of this plea bargain as a condition to defendant's entering a plea of guilty, the court stated that:
'The Court will consider the recommendation of counsel for the State and counsel for the defendant, but the Court will not commit itself to a sentence based upon the plea negotiations.
* * *'
Defendant's counsel then stated:
In response to this statement, the court stated that:
'THE COURT: The Court thinks it is wholly improper and beyond the scope of propriety in the disposition of criminal cases and the Court will not permit a conditional plea of the type referred to by counsel.'
Following a preliminary hearing, defendant entered a plea of guilty on both charges on December 30, 1974, although we find no transcript of those proceedings in the settled record. Following the completion of a presentence investigation and report, defendant appeared for sentencing on February...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burden v. State
...People v. Davis, 74 Mich.App. 624, 254 N.W.2d 335 (1977); People v. Lambrechts, 41 Ill.App.3d 729, 355 N.E.2d 53 (1976); State v. Steinmetz, 247 N.W.2d 690 (S.D.1976); Couch v. Commonwealth, 528 S.W.2d 712 (Ky.1975); State v. Evans, 194 Neb. 559, 234 N.W.2d 199 (1975); Cruz v. State, 530 S.......
-
State v. Doherty, 12115
...plea. The defendant's argument centers around the distinction between State v. McConkey, 1976, S.D., 247 N.W.2d 687, and State v. Steinmetz, 1976, S.D., 247 N.W.2d 690. The trial court's failure to concur in the plea bargain was not a reason given for withdrawal of the defendant's guilty pl......
-
State v. McConkey
...as the facts may warrant. I would affirm the judgment of conviction. * This case is readily distinguishable from the case of State v. Steinmetz, S.D., 247 N.W.2d 690, also being issued by this court today, in that Judge Jones in the Steinmetz case gave the defendant an opportunity to withdr......
-
State v. Rich, 15687
...The trial court is not bound by plea negotiations offered by the prosecutor. State v. Bolger, 332 N.W.2d 718 (S.D.1983); State v. Steinmetz, 247 N.W.2d 690 (S.D.1976). In this case, the trial court was informed and aware of aggravating circumstances--the defendant's past criminal record and......