Opinion ID: 2037670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: factual basis for prior guilty plea

Text: Petrilli pled guilty to aiding and abetting a burglary in violation of sections 459 and 32 of the California Penal Code. He argues the guilty plea was constitutionally defective because the California court made no record of a factual basis for accepting the plea. We disagree. In Goodroad, 406 N.W.2d at 145, we held that the factual predicate of a guilty plea could not be raised in a habeas corpus review[.] Gross, 446 N.W.2d at 51. In Everitt, we explained: Errors and irregularities in the proceedings of a court having jurisdiction of the person, subject matter and power to decide questions of law, are not reviewable though they may have been grounds for reversal on direct appeal. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a controversy and to render judgment in accord with law. Excepting those actions in which the court may lose jurisdiction by a denial of due process, [citation omitted] this power includes the power to decide wrongly as well as rightly, to render an erroneous judgment as well as a correct one.... If error occur the remedy is by appeal. Everitt, 412 N.W.2d at 121 (quoting Goodroad, 406 N.W.2d at 143). The requirement that the trial court determine that there is a factual basis for accepting the plea is statutory. SDCL 23A-7-14; Goodroad supra; Logan, supra; State v. King, 400 N.W.2d 878 (S.D.1987). Failure of the trial court to comply with SDCL 23A-7-14 may be grounds for appeal, but it does not reach the constitutional or jurisdictional proportions necessary to bring the question within the purview of habeas corpus. In Goodroad, supra, 406 N.W.2d at 143, we said, `Habeas corpus cannot be utilized as a substitute for an appeal' [citations omitted]. Habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to correct irregular procedures, rather, in the context of post-conviction attacks on the conviction itself, habeas corpus reaches only jurisdictional error. Id. (Emphasis added.) Accord Gross, 446 N.W.2d at 51-52; Podoll v. Solem, 408 N.W.2d 759 (S.D.1987); W. LaFave, J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 20.4, at 653 (1984). But see Spirit Track, 272 N.W.2d at 805. In this case, the sentence received by Petrilli appears to have been authorized by California lawat least Petrilli does not argue it was not. Further, the California court appears to have had jurisdiction of the person and of the subject matter before it. In his reply brief, Petrilli argues the California court's failure to make a record of the factual basis for his California guilty plea rendered the prior conviction both constitutionally and jurisdictionally infirm because, as a result, Petrilli's guilty plea was involuntary and not knowingly made. Thus, we must decide whether the court lost jurisdiction through a denial of due process. Everitt, 412 N.W.2d at 121. The rule that a trial court must establish a factual basis for a guilty plea is designed to protect the core considerations of the right against self-incrimination and the right to confront one's accusers. State v. Schulz, 409 N.W.2d 655, 658 (S.D.1987). A trial court may not accept a guilty plea without an affirmative showing the plea was voluntarily and intelligently made. Nachtigall v. Erickson, 85 S.D. 122, 178 N.W.2d 198, 200 (1970). A plea is intelligent and voluntary when the accused has a full understanding of his constitutional rights and, having that understanding, waives them. Lodermeier v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163, 164 (S.D.1978). If the plea is not intelligent and voluntary, it has been obtained in violation of due process and is void. Nachtigall, 178 N.W.2d at 200 (citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)). The Nachtigall court found, post- Boykin, a guilty plea cannot stand unless the record in some manner indicates a free and intelligent waiver of three constitutional rights...; self-incrimination; confrontation; and jury trialand an understanding of the nature and consequences of the plea. Id. at 201. Here, the California court canvassed Petrilli on the record regarding whether Petrilli was aware of and waived his rights (1) to a trial of any kind, (2) to face and question his accusers, (3) to present a defense, (4) to require the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and (5) to remain silent. The court explained to Petrilli that by pleading guilty, he was waiving all of those rights. Petrilli replied affirmatively to all of the court's inquiries. While it is true the California court did not inquire into the factual basis for Petrilli's plea on the record, we can find nothing in the authorities cited by Petrilli which would indicate this alone rendered Petrilli's plea involuntary or not knowingly made so as to subject the guilty plea to habeas review. [2] This is especially true since Petrilli was represented by counsel when he pled guilty to being an accomplice.