On appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court, the habeas court's finding of a sufficient factual basis was upheld as not clearly erroneous. See Gregory v. State, 325 N.W.2d 297, 298 (S.D. 1982). However, the South Dakota Supreme Court remanded the case for specific findings as to whether petitioner's plea was voluntary and intelligent and whether he had been advised of the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea.
In cases where defendants proclaim their innocence while at the same time pleading guilty, the factual basis to support such pleas must be "strong." Gregory v. State, 325 N.W.2d 297, 299 (S.D. 1982) (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)). This type of plea has been referred to as the " Alford plea.
We held that the trial court had a sufficient factual basis to accept Gregory's guilty plea, and that the court properly took judicial notice of the file for purposes of establishing a factual basis. Gregory v. State, 325 N.W.2d 297, 299 (S.D. 1982)[ Gregory I]. Gregory's plea of guilty was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, despite his expressed concern over an element of the crime to which he was pleading guilty. We nonetheless remanded for entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether he was advised of the nature and elements of the crime charged.
Jacobson argues that a facially invalid, prior DUI conviction was used to sustain his conviction for third offense DUI. He bases his argument on the contention that the record of his DUI conviction of July 30, 1987, fails to reflect that the plea-taking court established a factual basis for acceptance of the guilty plea on which the conviction was based. We find this argument resolved by our holding in Gregory v. State, 325 N.W.2d 297 (S.D. 1982). In Gregory, a habeas corpus petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief on the grounds that no factual basis for the guilty plea on which the conviction was based had been established on the record.
Id. at 77, quoting State v. Cody, 322 N.W. 11, 12 n. 2 (S.D. 1982). We further noted in Gregory v. State, 325 N.W.2d 297, 299 (S.D. 1982), that the records in a criminal case are as fully before the court through judicial notice as they would be if introduced into evidence. Therefore, we find that the habeas court herein properly took judicial notice of Alexander's underlying criminal file which was necessary and relevant for a determination of the merits of this action.
On appeal, this court cannot disturb such findings unless they are clearly erroneous. SDCL 15-6-52(a); Gregory v. State, 325 N.W.2d 297 (S.D. 1982); Spirit Track v. State, 272 N.W.2d 803 (S.D. 1978). Miller's first claim is that the trial court's inquiry into his reasons for requesting a change of judge denied him due process of law. Three days prior to his trial for escape, Miller moved for a change of judge.
"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."
A court may even find a factual basis when “the defendant cannot or will not admit to the facts establishing the elements of the crime [.]” Nachtigall, 2007 S.D. 109, ¶ 5, 741 N.W.2d at 219 (quoting Gregory v. State, 325 N.W.2d 297, 299 (S.D.1982)). McDonough claims that there was no evidence of a homicide on the record, yet he admitted to having committed one at his change of plea hearing.
Herrera v Collins, 506 U.S. 390; 113 S Ct 853; 122 L Ed 2d 203 (1993).People v Rowell, 14 Mich. App. 190; 165 N.W.2d 423 (1968); People v Tate, 134 Mich. App. 682; 325 N.W.2d 297 (1984).Rowell, n 13 supra.
Satter v. Solem, 434 N.W.2d 725, 728 (S.D. 1989) (remanding to habeas court to consider implications of involuntary admissions). See Gregory v. State, 325 N.W.2d 297, 300 (S.D. 1982) (remanding for entry of specific findings and conclusions on enumerated issues); Gregory v. Solem, 420 N.W.2d 362, 363-64 (S.D. 1988) (holding that petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on issues raised). III. DID ST. CLOUD RECEIVE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?