#27696-a-JMK

2016 S.D. 84

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOHN T. PENTECOST, Defendant and Appellant.

* * * *

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

THE HONORABLE CRAIG A. PFEIFLE

Judge

* * * *

MARTY J. JACKLEY

Attorney General

ANN C. MEYER

Assistant Attorney General

Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff 

and appellee. 

JAMY PATTERSON

Rapid City, South Dakota Attorney for defendant

and appellant.

* * * *

ARGUED ON 

OCTOBER 3, 2016

OPINION FILED 11/30/16
#27696

-1-

KERN, Justice

[¶1.] In April 2012, John Pentecost entered the home he previously shared 

with his ex-wife. He had not lived in the home for more than a year and brought 

with him items that could be used for restraint, a suicide note, and his Last Will 

and Testament. The police arrested Pentecost inside the home even though he

contended that he had a legal right to be present. The State charged him with 

several offenses, including second-degree burglary. He filed a pretrial motion to 

dismiss the burglary charge, which was denied. Ultimately, Pentecost pleaded 

guilty to second-degree burglary and was sentenced to prison. He later moved to 

withdraw his plea, but the court denied his motion. Pentecost appeals. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

[¶2.] On April 19, 2012, Pentecost hired a locksmith to rekey the home that 

he previously shared with his ex-wife, L.S., during their marriage. After gaining 

entrance to the house, he sent L.S. a text message informing her that he had 

changed the locks and moved some of his property inside because he wanted “to get 

a piece of his life back.” L.S., who was at work, called the police and reported what 

Pentecost had done. Upon their arrival, officers arrested Pentecost inside the home 

and discovered a shotgun and ammunition in his car. The investigation revealed 

that he brought the following items into the home: several bags, suitcases, clothing, 

zip ties, duct tape, cable wraps, a sales slip for the recent purchase of a handgun, a 

suicide note, and his Last Will and Testament. 

[¶3.] The State indicted Pentecost for second-degree burglary, a Class 3 

felony, and two alternative counts of stalking, both Class 1 misdemeanors. The 
#27696

-2-

State also filed a part II information alleging he had a prior conviction for stalking,

which, if proven, would enhance the penalty to a Class 6 felony. He entered not 

guilty pleas to all counts. 

[¶4.] At the time of his arrest, Pentecost was staying in Rapid City, South 

Dakota, but living primarily with relatives in Florida. Although Pentecost and L.S. 

divorced on April 8, 2011, he continued to send her hundreds of text messages and 

hours of voicemails, hoping to win back her affections. L.S. had informed him that 

she did not want further contact with him. Although he had visited the home,

Pentecost had not stayed overnight since March 2011. He retained several items of 

personal property in the home, including a living room set and TV because he was 

unable to move them. Sometime prior to the incident, L.S. moved the items into a 

storage room and changed the locks on the home. 

[¶5.] During their divorce proceedings, Pentecost and L.S. entered into a 

stipulation and property settlement agreement, providing that the home would be 

immediately placed on the market for sale. The proceeds from the sale would be 

used to satisfy certain debts with any remaining sums divided equally between the 

parties. The agreement also provided that the divorce decree “shall operate as 

affective [sic] transfer” of Pentecost’s interest in the property. The decree, which 

incorporated the stipulation, required Pentecost to execute any and all documents 

necessary for listing and selling the property, including a deed to divest himself of 

his interest. If he failed to provide the documents, the decree provided authority for 

L.S. to “actualize said sale and transfer the parties’ interest[.]” When Pentecost 
#27696

-3-

entered the home in April 2012, the house had not yet sold, and his name still 

appeared on the deed and on the home insurance contract. 

[¶6.] Pentecost filed a motion to dismiss the second-degree burglary charge 

on August 23, 2012, arguing it was legally impossible for him to burglarize the 

home as he retained an ownership interest in it. On August 29, 2012, the circuit 

court held a hearing and denied the motion to dismiss. The court found that the 

question whether Pentecost was licensed or privileged to enter the home was for the 

jury to resolve. 

[¶7.] On November 5, 2012, the circuit court held a change of plea hearing. 

Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, Pentecost pleaded guilty to seconddegree burglary.1 In exchange for his plea, the State dismissed the stalking charge 

and part II information and capped its sentencing recommendation at six years. 

Prior to the entry of the plea, counsel advised the court that Pentecost “was not 

aware that he was breaking the law by entering into what he understood to be his 

own home. Nevertheless, we believe the [S]tate would have met the elements at 

trial.” With Pentecost’s consent, the court took judicial notice of the grand jury 

transcripts, the police reports, and the pleadings from the divorce. There was some 

discussion at the plea hearing as to whether his plea was one of guilt or intended as 

 

1. Second-degree burglary is defined in SDCL 22-32-3, which provides: 

Any person who enters or remains in an occupied structure with 

intent to commit any crime, unless the premises are, at the time, 

open to the public or the person is licensed or privileged to enter 

or remain, under circumstances not amounting to first[-]degree 

burglary, is guilty of second-degree burglary. Second-degree 

burglary is a Class 3 felony. 
#27696

-4-

an Alford plea.2 On December 3, 2012, the circuit court sentenced Pentecost to six 

years in prison. 

[¶8.] Pentecost’s attorney filed an appeal, but it was untimely and dismissed 

by this Court. On January 24, 2014, Pentecost filed a petition seeking a writ of 

habeas corpus in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, alleging ineffective assistance of 

counsel and a denial of due process. Upon receipt of the habeas petition, the 

presiding judge, rather than proceed on the habeas action, ordered the judge 

originally assigned to the case to resentence Pentecost. On July 30, 2014, the day 

before his resentencing hearing, Pentecost filed a motion to set aside his judgment 

of conviction and to allow withdrawal of his plea. The circuit court held a 

resentencing hearing on July 31, 2014, denied Pentecost’s motion,3 and resentenced 

him to the same sentence imposed in 2012. An amended judgment was issued on

August 15, 2014.

[¶9.] Pentecost appealed the court’s amended judgment of sentence and 

challenged his original conviction, raising several issues regarding his plea. We 

concluded that this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Pentecost’s issues related 

to his original conviction because Pentecost failed to timely appeal his original 

judgment of conviction. However, we remanded the case to the circuit court for the 

 

2. The circuit court stated at the November, 5, 2012 change of plea hearing that 

the “plea from the [c]ourt’s perspective is in the nature of an Alford plea.” 

 

3. “The court acknowledged that there was “significant discussion,” during the 

change of plea hearing about “Mr. Pentecost’s plea being an Alford or 

something else.” But the court denied the motion to withdraw, finding that 

whether the plea was a “straight guilty plea or an Alford plea” it was made 

after an extensive advisement of rights and was well supported by the record. 
#27696

-5-

court to apply SDCL 23A-27-51 and to make factual findings regarding whether 

Pentecost “was denied the right to appeal from an original conviction in violation of 

the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of South Dakota.” State v. 

Pentecost (Pentecost I), 2015 S.D. 71, ¶ 10, 868 N.W.2d 590, 593 (quoting SDCL 23A27-51). Upon remand, the circuit court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law 

identifying that resentencing would occur pursuant to SDCL 23A-27-51 for the 

purpose of reinstating Pentecost’s right to appeal. On November 24, 2015, the court 

again sentenced Pentecost to the same terms and conditions of the original sentence 

imposed on December 3, 2012. Pentecost appeals, and we restate his issues as 

follows:

1. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Pentecost’s 

motion to dismiss on the grounds that he had a “license or 

privilege to enter or remain” in the residence under SDCL 

22-32-3. 

2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying 

Pentecost’s motion to set aside the judgment of conviction 

and allow withdrawal of his guilty plea. 

3. Whether the circuit court erred by accepting Pentecost’s 

guilty plea without establishing a factual basis for the 

offense of second-degree burglary. 

DECISION

[¶10.] 1. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Pentecost’s motion to

dismiss on the grounds that he had a “license or privilege to 

enter or remain” in the residence under SDCL 22-32-3.

[¶11.] Pentecost first argues the State lacked subject matter jurisdiction to 

prosecute him for second-degree burglary because he was licensed or privileged to 

be in the home as a joint owner. Pentecost cites State v. Wilson for the proposition 

that the court lacked jurisdiction because the charging document was not 

sufficiently clear on the point of ownership to show “that the property entered is not 
#27696

-6-

the property of the accused.” 36 S.D. 416, 155 N.W. 186, 186 (1915). In response, 

the State submits that the circuit court had jurisdiction and properly denied the 

motion to dismiss because the question of license or privilege was for the trier of 

fact. 

[¶12.] Whether Pentecost had a legal right to be present in the home does not

implicate the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. To properly hear a case, a circuit 

court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant appearing before them and 

subject matter jurisdiction over the charges filed by the State. State v. Medicine 

Eagle, 2013 S.D. 60, ¶ 40, 835 N.W.2d 886, 900. Pentecost does not dispute the 

question of personal jurisdiction. 

[¶13.] Subject matter jurisdiction is “a court’s competence to hear and 

determine cases of the general class to which proceedings in question belong” and 

“the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action.” March v. 

Thursby, 2011 S.D. 73, ¶ 15, 806 N.W.2d 239, 243. We have defined the concept of 

jurisdiction broadly to include “whether there was power to enter upon the inquiry 

and not whether the determination by the court of a question of law or fact involved 

is correct.” Medicine Eagle, 2013 S.D. 60, ¶ 40, 835 N.W.2d at 900. Here, the 

State’s charging documents show that the court had jurisdiction over the subject 

matter (second-degree burglary). The circuit court, as a court of general 

jurisdiction, had the power to hear Pentecost’s criminal case.4 

 

4. S.D. Const. art. V, § 1.
#27696

-7-

[¶14.] Pentecost’s argument that he was licensed or privileged to enter is a 

substantive question relating to the elements of the offense. SDCL 22-32-3 defines 

second-degree burglary as entering an occupied structure with the intent to commit 

any crime “unless the premises are, at the time, open to the public or the person is 

licensed or privileged to enter or remain.” (Emphasis added.) Pentecost arguably 

retained joint legal title to the home,5 but had not resided there for more than a 

year. Meanwhile, L.S., who lived in the home, did not want him there. 

[¶15.] Although we have not yet addressed this issue, many courts have done 

so in the context of burglary offenses involving estranged spouses or significant 

others. The majority of jurisdictions hold that legal ownership, while certainly a 

factor, is not dispositive of the right to be in a home.6 Instead, most jurisdictions 

 

5. Pentecost acknowledges that the language of the divorce stipulation provides 

that the divorce decree shall constitute an “affective [sic] transfer” of his 

interest in the property. But he argues that this language conflicts with the 

language of the decree, which grants him joint ownership until the home is 

sold. It is, however, unnecessary to decide this issue to resolve this case. 

6. See, e.g., People v. Davenport, 268 Cal. Rptr. 501, 505 (Cal. Ct. App.1990) 

(affirming defendant’s burglary conviction based on his unauthorized entry 

into marital home from which he had moved, even though he still had 

personal property in the home and no restraining order had been issued); 

People v. Johnson, 906 P.2d 122, 125 (Colo. 1995) (noting that the majority of 

jurisdictions that have addressed this issue “have found that the uninvited 

entry of an estranged spouse into the residence of the other spouse 

constitutes an ‘unlawful entry’”); Parham v. State, 556 A.2d 280, 285 (Md. 

1989) (affirming burglary and assault conviction where defendant entered 

marital home after wife had thrown him out two months prior to the crime,

defendant was living with his sister even though he retained personal 

belongings in the house, and wife was in the process of purchasing property 

in her own name); State v. Singley, 709 S.E.2d 603 (S.C. 2011) (holding that 

the “license or privilege” question in a burglary statute is answered by 

examining the totality of the circumstances); State v. Schneider, 673 P.2d 200 

(continued . . .)
#27696

-8-

answer the “license or privilege” question by asking whether a defendant had 

possession of or an occupancy interest in the home. This issue is decided upon 

consideration of the totality of the circumstances. 

[¶16.] The reasoning of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in State v. 

McMillian is instructive. 973 A.2d 287, 292 (N.H. 2009).7 In McMillian, defendant 

and victim co-signed a lease for an apartment in March 2007. Sometime before 

August 2007, victim asked defendant to move out. Defendant removed all his 

belongings from the apartment and returned his key. Defendant continued to visit 

on a regular basis and retained a property interest in the apartment. In August 

2007, defendant entered the apartment through a bathroom window, left after an 

argument, and then kicked in the front door and assaulted an occupant. After 

defendant was charged with burglary, he alleged he had a legal right to enter the 

home.

__________________

(. . . continued)

(Wash. 1983) (affirming a wife’s conviction for burglarizing property, which 

she jointly owned with her estranged husband).

7. The New Hampshire burglary statute provides: 

A person is guilty of burglary if he or she enters or remains 

unlawfully in a building or occupied structure, or separately 

secured or occupied section thereof, with purpose to commit a 

crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the 

public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter. It is an 

affirmative defense to prosecution for burglary that the building 

or structure was abandoned. 

N.H. Rev. Stat. § 635:1, I. 
#27696

-9-

[¶17.] The court held the question whether defendant was licensed or 

privileged to enter the apartment was one of fact for the jury. Id. “[W]hile the 

defendant had some proprietary interest in the apartment as a co-lessee, this fact 

did not automatically give him license to enter under [the New Hampshire burglary 

statute].” Id. The court stated that “the entry here interfered with the security and 

safety of the occupant, thus implicating the very interests the burglary statute was 

designed to protect.” Id. Further, it held that the trial court acted appropriately by 

instructing the jury on “a list of relevant, although not exclusive, factors, such as 

defendant’s method of entry, his past entries, and the length of [defendant and 

victim’s] separation” to consider when deciding if defendant was licensed or 

privileged to enter the apartment. Id. 

[¶18.] The Supreme Court of Iowa applied a similar test in State v. Hagedorn, 

holding there was sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of burglary8 of his 

former marital home. 679 N.W.2d 666, 672 (Iowa 2004). Defendant was married to 

victim, and they lived in a duplex, which was leased by victim. In July 2002, the 

couple separated and both moved out of the duplex. Defendant left his possessions 

in the duplex, but victim removed most of her belongings. Toward the end of July, 

 

8. Iowa defines burglary as: 

Any person, having intent to commit a felony, assault, or theft, 

therein, who, having no right, license or privilege to do so, enters 

an occupied structure, such occupied structure not being open to 

the public, or who remains therein after it is closed to the public 

or after the person’s right, license or privilege to be there has 

expired, or any person having such intent who breaks an 

occupied structure, commits burglary.

I.C.A. § 713.1. 
#27696

-10-

however, victim moved back into the duplex. She packed up defendant’s things and 

placed them on the porch for his family to retrieve. Victim instructed defendant to 

stay away from the duplex. In the early morning on August 2, 2002, defendant 

entered the duplex through a side window and assaulted a person inside. A jury 

convicted defendant of several crimes, including burglary.

[¶19.] Defendant in Hagedorn argued, as does Pentecost, that “he [could not] 

be convicted of burglary for entering his own house.” Id. at 669. The Iowa Supreme 

Court rejected this argument, noting first that “[a]t common law, ‘[t]he crime [of 

burglary] was considered to be an offense against the security of habitation or 

occupancy . . . . It was not designed to protect property or ownership, rather the 

notion that people should be able to feel secure in their homes.’” Id. In affirming 

the conviction, the court held that “whether one has a right or privilege to enter 

property is not determined solely by his or her ownership interest in the property or 

by whether the structure can be characterized as the ‘marital home.’ Rather the 

focus . . . is on whether the defendant had any possessory or occupancy interest in 

the premises at the time of entry.” Id. at 670. The court concluded that “neither 

the fact that the defendant had previously resided in the duplex with his family nor 

the fact his children were still in the home gave him an irrevocable license to enter 

against the wishes of his wife, the current occupant.” Id. 

[¶20.] We find the reasoning in McMillian and Hagedorn persuasive. To

determine whether a defendant is “licensed or privileged” to be in a home we 

examine whether the defendant was in possession of or had an occupancy interest 

in the home. The primary purpose of our burglary law is to criminalize home 
#27696

-11-

invasions, which may create significant dangers. See State v. Chipps, 2016 S.D. 8, 

¶ 39, 874 N.W.2d 475, 489 (“‘The main risk of burglary arises not from the simple 

physical act of wrongfully entering onto another’s property, but rather from the 

possibility of a face-to-face confrontation between the burglar and a third party—

whether an occupant, a police officer, or a bystander—who comes to investigate.’”)

(citation omitted). This paramount right to safety in the home cannot be thwarted 

by a claimed legal interest when all other factors show that the defendant was not 

in possession of or an occupant of the home. 

[¶21.] Here, Pentecost alleges that he had an ownership interest in the home. 

But it is undisputed that Pentecost no longer lived there and that the home’s 

occupant, L.S., did not want him in the home. Pentecost hired a locksmith to rekey 

the home in order to gain access without L.S.’s knowledge or consent. He brought 

several items into the home, suggesting an intention to harm L.S. The burglary 

statute exists to protect L.S. in her home, and Pentecost’s position would render 

that protection illusory. 

[¶22.] At the end of the hearing on Pentecost’s motion to dismiss the seconddegree burglary charge, the circuit court stated: 

At this point in time, I cannot dismiss the burglary charge. It 

certainly appears to me that the issues that arose during the 

post-divorce suggest, at a minimum, that there is an issue that 

can be presented to the jury on the question under the statute 

whether the defendant was licensed or privileged to enter the 

property, which is the language of the relevant charging statute. 

We agree. A claim of legal ownership is not the only dispositive criteria to 

determine whether an individual has a “license or privilege to enter or remain” 

under SDCL 22-32-3. Rather, the relevant inquiry under SDCL 22-32-3 is whether 
#27696

-12-

the defendant had a possessory or occupancy interest in the premises. This 

question is answered upon an examination of the totality of the circumstances,

which may include such non-exclusive factors as the defendant’s method of entry, 

history of past entries, the length of the parties’ separation, and other relevant 

information. The court did not err in denying Pentecost’s motion to dismiss. 

[¶23.] 2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying

Pentecost’s motion to set aside the judgment of conviction and 

allow withdrawal of his guilty plea.

[¶24.] Whether to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea is a decision “solely 

within the discretion of the trial court and is reviewed under an abuse of discretion 

standard.” State v. Goodwin, 2004 S.D. 75, ¶ 4, 681 N.W.2d 847, 849. An abuse of 

discretion is a “fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of 

permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or 

unreasonable.” State v. Lemler, 2009 S.D. 86, ¶ 40, 774 N.W.2d 272, 286. A 

defendant may, pursuant to SDCL 23A-27-11 (Rule 32(d)), move to withdraw a 

guilty plea only before a sentence is imposed. 

[¶25.] Pentecost argues that he should have been allowed to withdraw his 

plea after his sentencing because he maintained his innocence, misapprehended the 

facts, and the case involved a legal issue of first impression. The State, on the other 

hand, argues that the circuit court carefully considered Pentecost’s request in light 

of all the relevant facts and did not abuse its discretion.

[¶26.] A court may set aside a judgment of conviction and permit a defendant 

to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing only “to correct manifest injustice.” 

SDCL 23A-27-11 (Rule 32(d)). This strict standard is “to prevent a defendant from 
#27696

-13-

testing the weight of potential punishment, and then withdrawing the plea if he 

finds the sentence unexpectedly severe.” Goodwin, 2004 S.D. 75, ¶ 4, 681 N.W.2d at

849 (quoting State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 686, 688 (S.D. 1984)). But “if a defendant 

enters a plea ‘without full knowledge of the consequences and involuntarily’ the 

trial court’s discretion should favor withdrawal of the guilty plea.” Id. (quoting 

State v. Wahle, 521 N.W.2d 134, 137 (S.D. 1994)). 

[¶27.] Pentecost’s argument is unavailing. Pentecost was originally 

sentenced on December 3, 2012 and moved to withdraw his plea the day before the 

first resentencing on July 31, 2014. In denying his motion, the court found 

Pentecost’s request was made at the “11th hour” and untimely. The court noted 

that “we are on the cusp of two years” following the change of plea and original 

sentencing and that Pentecost was now “out on parole” at the time of resentencing. 

Additionally, the court found the delay “has resulted in the potential for significant 

prejudice to the State.” We have recognized that prejudice to the State is a valid 

reason to deny a defendant’s request to withdraw a plea after sentencing. See State 

v. Kvasnicka, 2016 S.D. 2, ¶¶ 17-18, 873 N.W.2d 705, 712-13 (holding that prejudice 

to state prosecution is a factor weighing against withdrawal of a guilty plea). 

[¶28.] Our review of the record reveals that the court carefully advised 

Pentecost of his statutory and constitutional rights on multiple occasions during the 

case. Although Pentecost maintained his innocence, he admitted to the underlying 

facts, which support a burglary conviction. Pentecost lost his motion to strike the 

second-degree burglary charge and then made a tactical decision to plead guilty. 

Further, the alleged novelty of the underlying issue does not change our view of the 
#27696

-14-

circuit court’s decision. Pentecost’s claim lacks the sheen and substance of manifest 

injustice. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion.

[¶29.] 3. Whether the circuit court erred by accepting Pentecost’s guilty

plea without establishing a factual basis for the offense of 

second-degree burglary. 

[¶30.] Under SDCL 23A-7-2 (Rule 11(a)) and SDCL 23A-7-14 (Rule 11(f)), a

circuit court must not accept a guilty plea, except a plea of nolo contendere, unless it 

is satisfied there is an adequate factual basis for the plea and offense charged. “The 

factual basis may come from ‘anything that appears on the record.’” State v.

Nachtigall, 2007 S.D. 109, ¶ 5, 741 N.W.2d 216, 219 (quoting State v. Schulz, 409 

N.W.2d 655, 658 (S.D. 1987). “In cases where defendants proclaim their innocence 

while at the same time pleading guilty, the factual basis to support such pleas must

be ‘strong.’” Id. (quoting Gregory v. State, 325 N.W.2d 297, 299 (S.D. 1982). 

[¶31.] Pentecost asserts that there was an inadequate factual basis because 

he maintained his innocence, his “admission was equivocal,” the charge “was

complicated,” and “the factual basis was not strong.” Additionally, Pentecost 

submits that the court failed to establish a factual basis that he intended to commit 

the crime of stalking inside the home. These assertions are not supported by the 

record. 

[¶32.] The evidence collected from the crime scene and sources used to 

supplement the factual basis were more than sufficient to provide a factual basis for 

the plea. The police report and grand jury transcripts reveal that officers arrested 

Pentecost after he entered L.S.’s home. Pentecost had not lived in the home for 

more than a year, even though he may have retained an ownership interest in the 
#27696

-15-

home. L.S. told Pentecost he was not welcome. Pentecost had a shotgun with 

ammunition in his car and brought tools of restraint, a suicide note, and his Last 

Will and Testament into the home. Additionally, Pentecost admitted at the change 

of plea hearing that, “[w]hen I came home, I was not allowed back in. . . . And I was 

trying to get back into my house.” A review of the plea colloquy shows a factual 

basis for each of the elements of second-degree burglary. Pentecost was (a) a 

person; (b) who entered or remained in an occupied structure; (c) with intent to 

commit any crime; (d) and the structure was not open to the public nor was 

Pentecost licensed or privileged to enter or remain. See SDCL 22-32-3.

[¶33.] Pentecost’s belief that he was licensed to enter the home does not cast 

doubt on the adequacy of the factual basis. Pentecost’s attorney at the change of 

plea hearing, Ellery Grey, succinctly explained why Pentecost’s claim is insufficient:

“So although Mr. Pentecost believed at that time subjectively that he could go into 

the house because he had a mistake of law, a mistake of law would not have 

provided us with a defense at the time of trial.” Indeed, Pentecost’s mistake of law 

was not a defense to the second-degree burglary charge. See Gakin v. City of Rapid 

City, 2005 S.D. 68, ¶ 13, 698 N.W.2d 493, 498 (“Mere ignorance of the law can never 

be considered a mistake upon which relief from the operation or effect of the law 

may be predicated.”). Likewise, Pentecost’s claim that he had a legal right to be 

present in the home does not erode the adequacy of the factual basis for his plea. 

See McDonough v. Weber, 2015 S.D. 1, ¶ 38, 859 N.W.2d 26, 42 (“A defendant who 

admits all essential elements of a charge provides the necessary factual basis to 
#27696

-16-

accept a plea, even if his or her contemporaneous assertion of a justification or 

excuse might actually result in a trial verdict of not guilty.”). 

[¶34.] Further, while there was some confusion at the change of plea hearing 

as to whether Pentecost was making an Alford plea this does not change our 

decision. See State v. Engelmann, 541 N.W.2d 96, 101 (S.D. 1995) (“[A]n Alford plea 

cannot be withdrawn as a matter of course.”); see also North Carolina v. Alford, 400 

U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970) (allowing acceptance of a guilty plea 

even though the defendant professes innocence if the defendant receives a benefit 

for pleading guilty). In exchange for pleading guilty to second-degree burglary, the 

State dismissed the stalking charges and the part II information and capped its 

sentencing recommendation at six years.9 Pentecost received a benefit in exchange 

for his guilty plea. The record contains sufficient support for Pentecost’s plea. 

 

9. The following exchange between the circuit court and Pentecost occurred at 

his change of plea hearing: 

The court: in the event that some[one] else determines that it 

is [an Alford plea], you understand that in the event that you 

enter this plea, even though your statements indicate that you 

were doing so simply to gain access to your home, . . . the State 

would have had certain evidence that they would intend to 

present at the time of trial with which they can substantiate the 

charge, and you understand that part of the agreement here 

today would be that while you are suggesting to me that the 

entry into the home was not done with an illegal purpose, very 

clearly, the State would have had evidence to suggest and 

convict – suggest that to the jury and convict at the time of trial. 

Do you understand that, sir? 

Pentecost: Yes, sir. 
#27696

-17-

CONCLUSION

[¶35.] We join the majority of jurisdictions that hold that the question 

whether a defendant is “licensed or privileged to enter or remain” in an occupied 

structure hinges on whether the defendant is in possession or control of the 

premises at the time of entry. A claim of legal title or ownership is not solely

dispositive. Rather, the trier of fact must make this determination based upon an 

examination of the totality of the circumstances. The circuit court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying Pentecost’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Finally, there 

was an adequate factual basis supporting Pentecost’s guilty plea to second-degree 

burglary. We affirm.

[¶36.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and ZINTER, SEVERSON, and 

WILBUR, Justices, concur.