State v. Wilson, 459 N.W.2d 457 (S.D. 1990)

Cases | State v. Wilson, 459 N.W.2d 457 (S.D. 1990) | 2018

The defendant pled guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol. After hearing the terms of the plea bargain, the trial court informed the defendant of the $2000 maximum penalty he faced by pleading guilty but did not mention restitution. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay $4,318 in restitution to the victim’s insurance company, in addition to a $500 fine. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court erred in failing to inform him of the possibility of restitution before he entered his pleas. The court reversed the restitution order. Imposition of the amount of restitution without mentioning it in the plea bargain materially altered the defendant’s expectations and was beyond the scope of the agreement. The amount of the fine and restitution were nearly $3,000 more than the maximum indebtedness the defendant was told he faced. Given the defendant’s indigent status, the amount was a “substantial” sum that should have been articulated in the plea bargain. The trial court must advise the defendant of the possibility of imposing restitution before it accepts a guilty or nolo contendere plea, and must convey to the defendant before entry of the plea that the state intends to seek a substantial amount of restitution as a part of the plea bargain.