Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Shumaker
Citations: 2010 S.D. 95; 792 N.W.2d 174; 2010 SD 95; 2010 S.D. LEXIS 172; 2010 WL 5124734Docket: 25599
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court; December 15, 2010; South Dakota; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Steven Shumaker appeals his conviction for fourth offense DUI, arguing that the trial court erred by sentencing him to five years in prison, with two years conditionally suspended, despite a binding plea agreement that capped his sentence at three years. Shumaker was arrested on June 18, 2009, and charged with DUI as a Class 5 felony, punishable by up to five years. During the plea hearing on January 6, 2010, the court confirmed the plea agreement limited the sentence to no more than three years of imprisonment. However, at the sentencing hearing on February 23, 2010, the court imposed a five-year sentence, violating the terms of the plea agreement. The legal standard applied for reviewing whether the trial court complied with the plea agreement is de novo. While trial courts are generally not bound by plea agreements, if they accept a binding agreement, they must honor the terms. The court's failure to adhere to the plea agreement constituted an error, warranting the appeal. The trial court accepted the binding plea agreement for Shumaker, confirming he was informed of his rights, the charges, and the penalties involved. The court's reference to "this" plea agreement indicated acceptance of its terms. Unlike non-binding plea agreements under SDCL 23A-7-8(2), which allow a court to reject recommendations without nullifying the agreement, the plea here was binding. At sentencing, the court reiterated its acceptance, emphasizing that Shumaker’s attorney had negotiated a capped sentence of three years, down from a maximum of five, due to his DUI history. The court did not reject the plea agreement or inform Shumaker that it was not bound by it, nor did it advise him that the outcome could be less favorable than the plea agreement suggested, as required by SDCL 23A-7-11. The State argued that Shumaker was aware of the court's intention to impose a longer sentence, but Shumaker contended that the court indicated he would face no more than three years, with potential suspended time. The trial court's language was ambiguous regarding whether suspended time would be part of the three-year cap or in addition to it. Ultimately, the court's comments suggested that a portion of the three-year sentence would indeed be suspended, aligning with the terms of the accepted plea agreement. Shumaker contends that the trial court's sentence of five years, with two years conditionally suspended, violates the plea agreement, which capped his sentence at three years. The court had assured him of "no more than three years lock-up time," referencing State v. Reaves, where a similar issue arose regarding a twenty-year sentence with a ten-year suspension exceeding a fifteen-year cap. The conclusion in Reaves established that a sentence encompasses both the actual jail time and any suspended time. If Shumaker violates the conditions of his suspended sentence, he could face a total prison term exceeding the agreed cap, thus breaching the court’s promise. As such, the trial court's sentence in Shumaker's case is deemed improper and requires remand for resentencing within the limits of the plea agreement. The decision is supported by Chief Justice Gilbertson and Justices Konenkamp, Zinter, Meierhenry, and Severson.