Case Title: State v. Wahle

Citation: 521 N.W.2d 134

Docket Number: 

State: south-dakota

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1994-09-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
521 N.W.2d 134 (1994) STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Craig Joseph WAHLE, Defendant and Appellant. No. 18441. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs May 26, 1994. Decided September 7, 1994. *135 Mark Barnett, Atty. Gen., Ann C. Meyer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee. Gary W. Conklin of Galland Legal Clinic, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant. PER CURIAM. Craig J. Wahle (Wahle) pled guilty to one count of second degree rape and the allegations of a Part II Habitual Offender Information. He subsequently sought to withdraw his pleas. In this decision, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wahle's motion to withdraw his pleas. Accordingly, we affirm. State filed an indictment charging Wahle with two counts of second degree rape (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) and one count of first degree burglary (SDCL 22-32-1(3)). Along with the indictment, state filed a Part II Habitual Offender Information alleging that, in December, 1980, Wahle was previously convicted of felony, first degree rape. Wahle was arraigned on all of these charges and entered not guilty pleas. A change of plea hearing was subsequently conducted on the first count of the indictment charging second degree rape. The trial court explained the rape charge and the maximum possible penalty for the offense. Wahle indicated he understood both. The trial court then explained the ramifications of the Habitual Offender Information and the maximum sentence enhancement if Wahle was convicted of both the principal offense and the habitual offender charge. Specifically, the trial court told Wahle that the maximum possible punishment he could receive was life in the state penitentiary without parole. Wahle stated that he understood. After discussing the charges and the maximum penalties, the trial court went on to readvise Wahle of his constitutional rights and further advised that a guilty plea would waive those rights. Wahle stated that he understood his rights and the ramifications of a guilty plea. At that point, the following exchange occurred: After the above exchange, the trial court canvassed Wahle as to the factual basis for his plea and accepted the plea. Wahle then pled guilty to the habitual offender charge and the trial court found a factual basis for that plea and accepted it. Sentencing was deferred pending completion of a presentence investigation. Wahle subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty pleas. Wahle and his counsel appeared before the trial court during a hearing on the motion and explained the basis for the motion as follows: Wahle's motion to withdraw his pleas was denied at the conclusion of the hearing. A judgment was later entered sentencing him to serve 200 years in the state penitentiary. Wahle appeals. SDCL 23A-27-11 provides: This court has held that: State v. Grosh, 387 N.W.2d 503, 505-506 (S.D.1986) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Wahle contends he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because it was not voluntary. Similar to the argument in State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 686 (S.D. 1984), Wahle argues his plea was not voluntary because he misunderstood the 300 year cap on the sentence he would receive as a result of the plea bargain. In Lohnes, we reversed the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the plea bargain provided that the defendant would not be sentenced to life and the defendant was ultimately sentenced to 347 years in the penitentiary. In reaching our decision, we focused on the defendant's reasonable expectations from the plea bargain. We concluded that the defendant could have reasonably understood the part of the plea bargain that he would be sentenced to a term of years included a promise that he would not receive a sentence exceeding his life expectancy. As authority for our holding in Lohnes, we relied on United States v. Crusco, 536 F.2d 21 (3rd Cir.1976). In Crusco, the Third Circuit reversed the denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea where there was confusion in the elocution of the plea bargain concerning the maximum seven year sentence and whether a mandatory parole term would be part of that seven years or in addition to it. The circuit court concluded: Crusco, 536 F.2d at 24-25 (citations omitted) (emphasis original). Lohnes and Crusco establish that the withdrawal of a guilty plea, even prior to sentencing, is not subject to the whim or caprice of the defendant. Rather, it is a matter that lies solely within the discretion of the trial court. Although, before sentencing, that discretion is to be exercised liberally in favor of withdrawal, the trial court must still look at the reasons why withdrawal is sought. If, as in Crusco and Lohnes, there is sufficient objective proof on the record of the defendant's misunderstanding of the maximum sentence he faced, then the plea is considered to have been entered without full knowledge of the consequences and involuntarily. Under these circumstances, the trial court's discretion should favor withdrawal of the guilty plea. However, as we said in Grosh, supra, if the request to withdraw is frivolous, the trial court need not grant it. Wahle's request to withdraw his plea was obviously frivolous and distinguishable from that in Lohnes. In Lohnes, there was never any discussion during elocution of the plea agreement that the defendant's sentence to a term of years could be to a term exceeding his life expectancy. Here, Wahle's own counsel outlined the terms of the plea bargain and he specifically mentioned that the sentence would be, "something less than three hundred yearszero to three hundred years..." (emphasis added). When asked if he *138 understood the plea bargain, Wahle unhesitatingly replied, "[y]es, I do." It is difficult to see how the terms of the plea bargain could have been made more plain and also difficult to see how Wahle could have held any expectation other than that the maximum penalty he faced was a 300 year sentence to the state penitentiary. In view of the clear explanation of the plea bargain, Wahle's claims of misunderstanding, misapprehension and involuntariness ring hollow. See, U.S. v. Dalman, 994 F.2d 537 (8th Cir. 1993) (defendant's performance during plea hearing inconsistent with his after-the-fact claim of misunderstanding of proceedings and involuntariness of guilty plea). The record of entry of Wahle's guilty plea fails to contain any objective facts whatsoever that can be viewed as reasonably justifying a mistaken impression as to the maximum possible penalty for his offense. To the contrary, all pertinent facts and consequences were carefully explained and Wahle unhesitatingly indicated his understanding of the plea bargain and its effects. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Wahle's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST, HENDERSON, SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., participating.