Ceplecha v. Sullivan , 2023 S.D. 63 ( 2023 )

#30228-a-MES
2023 S.D. 63IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
****
DANIEL CEPLECHA, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
DAN SULLIVAN, Warden
South Dakota State Penitentiary, Respondent and Appellee.
****
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
BENNETT COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
****
THE HONORABLE MARGO D. NORTHRUP
Judge
****
RYAN KOLBECK
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorney for petitioner and
appellant.
MARTY J. JACKLEY
Attorney General
PAUL S. SWEDLUND
Solicitor General
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for respondent and
appellee.
****
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
AUGUST 29, 2023
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS
RECEIVED
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
OPINION FILED 11/29/23
#30228
SALTER, Justice
[¶1.] Daniel Ceplecha is serving a life sentence in prison after he pled guilty
to first-degree manslaughter. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming
he is actually innocent and alleging his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance
by not assuring Ceplecha understood his right to assert a self-defense claim. The
habeas court granted the State’s 1 motion to dismiss, concluding that we had
previously considered Ceplecha’s claims on direct appeal, which precluded their
relitigation under the doctrine of res judicata. The court then issued a certificate of
probable cause, and Ceplecha appeals. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural History
The killing of Moses Red Bear and the plea agreement
[¶2.] Ceplecha and his son, Rangler, were originally charged with
alternative counts of first- and second-degree murder along with conspiracy to
commit murder in connection with the 2016 death of Moses Red Bear at the
Ceplechas’ home in Martin. Law enforcement reports submitted to the circuit court
indicated that Red Bear had been shot seven or eight times with two different
firearms—twice in the right thigh, three times in the chest and abdomen area, once
behind the right ear, once between Red Bear’s eyes, and a possible shot in the left
hand. A witness present in the home was in a nearby bathroom and heard the
Ceplechas berating and shooting Red Bear.
1. Though the warden of the state penitentiary is named as the respondent, he
is, of course, holding Ceplecha as an agent of the State which we will use as
the reference for the respondent here.
-1-
#30228
[¶3.] After they had killed Red Bear, Ceplecha and his son carried his body
to a rural area and set it on fire in an apparent attempt to conceal their crime.
However, the witness at the Ceplecha home had promptly reported the killing, and
police officers apprehended the Ceplechas within hours and recovered Red Bear’s
badly disfigured body.
[¶4.] Ceplecha spoke to a Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) special
agent and advised that Red Bear had been staying at his home. Ceplecha said he
had confronted Red Bear about stealing some items and cash and told him to leave.
However, Red Bear returned a short while later, and Ceplecha struck him in the
nose, causing it to bleed. After this point, Ceplecha claimed he had blacked out and
had no memory of anything until he was apprehended by law enforcement officers
at a local convenience store. At no time during the interview did Ceplecha claim to
have shot Red Bear in self-defense.
[¶5.] And virtually all of the other evidence adduced cast serious doubt upon
Ceplecha’s claim that he had blacked out. In addition to the witness’s report that
Ceplecha had acted with his son to torment and kill Red Bear, surveillance footage
from the convenience store shows the Ceplechas, shortly after the killing, stopping
for sandwiches, coffee, and, portentously, a lighter en route to disposing of Red
Bear’s body. The surveillance video also shows the Ceplechas later returned to the
convenience store where, the DCI special agent observed, Ceplecha was not in a
“blackout condition” as he paid for coffee and conversed with the clerk.
[¶6.] Ultimately, Ceplecha and his son each pled guilty to first-degree
manslaughter as part of written plea agreements with the State, which agreed to
-2-
#30228
dismiss the murder and conspiracy charges. Neither agreement imposed any limit
upon the exercise of the circuit court’s sentencing discretion. As part of his plea
agreement, Ceplecha agreed that the circuit court could use a 77-page exhibit
containing police reports and investigative material to find a factual basis for his
plea. Among other things, the exhibit contained a report of Ceplecha’s interview
with the DCI special agent and a report of an interview of the witness who had been
in the Ceplechas’ home when they killed Red Bear.
The change of plea and effort to withdraw the guilty plea
[¶7.] During a joint change of plea hearing with his son, the circuit court
advised Ceplecha that the maximum punishment for first-degree manslaughter was
life in prison without the possibility of parole. The court also explained the extent
of its sentencing discretion and Ceplecha’s risk associated with the plea agreement:
The court: And the Court could in fact impose the maximum
sentence which is life imprisonment. Do you
understand?
Ceplecha: Yes, Your Honor.
The court: And if the Court does impose life imprisonment and
chooses to do that, there is a statute that indicates
that you would not be eligible for parole. Do you
understand all of that?
Ceplecha: Yes, Your Honor.
[¶8.] The circuit court told Ceplecha that the feature of manslaughter that
refers to a killing “without design to effect a death” was not, itself, an affirmative
-3-
#30228
element of the offense. 2 But the court noted that under the parties’ plea agreement,
Ceplecha was acknowledging that he had killed Red Bear without any design to
effect death. The court accepted Ceplecha’s guilty plea after finding it was knowing
and voluntary and supported by a factual basis. 3
[¶9.] Over two months after the change of plea hearing and approximately
one month before the scheduled sentencing hearing, Ceplecha and his son
submitted a joint, pro se letter to the court in which they purported to withdraw
their guilty pleas. Among their stated reasons for reconsidering their guilty pleas,
the Ceplechas wrote, “We are not guilty of the charges.” This claim of innocence is
the same one presented in the current habeas action, and the circuit court directly
addressed it.
[¶10.] Treating the Ceplechas’ letter as a pro se motion to withdraw their
guilty pleas, the circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which both
Ceplecha and his son testified. During his testimony, Ceplecha admitted to lying
about blacking out and claimed he acted in self-defense after Red Bear was
“swinging a gun at me.” Ceplecha agreed with the prosecutor that it was the “first
2. Under the plea agreement, Ceplecha and his son agreed to plead guilty to the
first-degree manslaughter theory described in SDCL 22-16-15(3)—a homicide
perpetrated “[w]ithout any design to effect death . . . but by means of a
dangerous weapon[.]”
3. Ceplecha also admitted to the circuit court that he caused Red Bear’s death.
-4-
#30228
time [he had] told the State” that he had shot Red Bear in self-defense and added
the incongruent justification, “Why would I incriminate myself.” 4
[¶11.] In a post hearing brief, John Murphy, Ceplecha’s court-appointed
attorney, argued that his client’s request to withdraw his guilty plea was not
frivolous, theorizing that Ceplecha may have believed that the manslaughter
offense and his self-defense claim were one in the same because neither, as alleged,
contemplated an intentional killing:
It is conceivable that Mr. Ceplecha believed that self-defense
was not a defense available to him for a charge of first degree
manslaughter because the charge already contained the
unintended killing element. In essence, it appears Mr. Ceplecha
is arguing that he believed self-defense was subsumed into, or
negated by, the elements of first degree manslaughter.
[¶12.] The circuit court denied the Ceplechas’ request to withdraw their
guilty pleas in a written memorandum opinion. The court cited the principle that
allowed it to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where it is frivolous, meaning
the defendant “fails to provide a tenable reason why withdrawal should be
permitted, a reason the court deems fair and just.” See State v. Schmidt, 2012 S.D.
77, ¶ 16, 825 N.W.2d 889, 894 (cleaned up). Among the factors the court considered
in its fair and just analysis was “[w]hether the defendant asserts he is innocent[.]”
[¶13.] In this regard, the circuit court observed that, besides their belated
claims of self-defense, “the Defendants produced no evidence to support their
apparent claim of self-defense.” The court continued:
4. Rangler Ceplecha testified that he and his father both shot Red Bear, but
Rangler claimed that he had done so “in defense of my home, my family, and
the people in my house” because Red Bear was “waving a 45.”
-5-
#30228
Neither [of the Ceplechas] asserted innocence at the change of
plea hearing. The record which was presented contained not a
shred of evidence that Red Bear had a gun. There is substantial
evidence, however, that the Defendants shot Red Bear several
times with separate firearms. On top of that, there is
overwhelming evidence that the Defendants attempted to cover
up their crime by cleaning the scene and burning the body. The
Defendants’ testimony regarding self-defense is simply not
credible.
(Emphasis added.)
[¶14.] The circuit court also commented that the favorable aspect of the plea
agreement that “took the mandatory life sentence off the table” was negotiated by
defense counsel amid “very strong” evidence of murder. Still too, the court cited its
careful efforts to assure a provident guilty plea for each of the Ceplechas and its
reassertion that the pleas were knowing and voluntary. In the court’s view:
[T]he real reason for the Defendants’ motion to withdraw plea is
not actual innocence, but instead the desire for a “do over” and
chance to go to trial because they might get a life sentence.[ 5]
This is not a fair and just reason to withdraw a guilty plea.
[¶15.] At a subsequent joint sentencing hearing, the circuit court imposed life
sentences upon each of the Ceplechas.
5. Rangler testified that he was motivated to seek withdrawal of his guilty plea
after he explained “my side of it” to the pre-sentence investigation writer who
noted differences with the other evidence. Rangler suspected that “if they
don’t believe my side of it, then I’m going to get life anyway.”
-6-
#30228
The direct appeal
[¶16.] Ceplecha and his son each appealed and argued that the circuit court
had abused its discretion by not allowing them to withdraw their guilty pleas. 6 We
rejected the claim, endorsing the circuit court’s finding that the Ceplechas’
testimony was self-serving and “simply not credible.” State v. Ceplecha, 2020 S.D.
11, ¶¶ 52–53, 940 N.W.2d 682, 696–97 (Ceplecha I). We noted, as the circuit court
had, the delayed nature of the Ceplechas’ self-defense claims and the absence of any
other evidence to support them. Id.[¶17.] We also agreed with the circuit court’s assessment that the guilty pleas
had been knowing and voluntary, stating that the record was devoid of any evidence
suggesting either guilty plea was involuntary. Id. ¶ 51, 940 N.W.2d at 696. Our
ultimate conclusion was stated in unequivocal terms: “Based on the circuit court’s
detailed colloquy with each defendant and their unequivocal answers to the court’s
advisement, we have no doubt that both Daniel’s and Rangler’s guilty pleas were
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.” Id.
The habeas action
[¶18.] In an amended habeas corpus petition, Ceplecha alleged that Murphy
rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by permitting the entry of a guilty plea
without a sufficient factual basis and for failing to investigate a self-defense theory.
The State moved to dismiss the habeas action pursuant to SDCL 15-6-12(b)(5). In
its supporting brief to the habeas court, the State focused upon the second prong of
6. Rangler also appealed a separate decision by the court denying his request
for substitute counsel. Both of the Ceplechas challenged their sentences as
well. None of the claims were successful.
-7-
#30228
the accepted test for ineffective assistance of counsel that requires a showing that
counsel’s errors were prejudicial. 7
[¶19.] The State argued that Ceplecha could not succeed on his ineffective
assistance of counsel claim because he could not demonstrate prejudice. Citing
rules set out in our prior decisions, the State contended that any failure to advise
Ceplecha of a potential defense could only be considered prejudicial if he was able to
show that it likely would have been successful at trial. However, because we
affirmed the circuit court’s determination that Ceplecha’s self-defense claim was
“not credible” in Ceplecha I, the State asserted that the effort to litigate the viability
of the self-defense claim under a theory of ineffective assistance of counsel was
barred under the doctrine of res judicata.
[¶20.] The habeas court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. Moving
directly to the prejudice prong for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims,
the court noted that “this inquiry depends not only on whether the affirmative
defense likely would have succeeded at trial but more importantly, whether the trial
court previously ruled that it would not.” As noted above, the circuit court had,
indeed, found Ceplecha’s self-defense claim to be not credible and nothing more
than a frivolous reason for withdrawing his guilty plea—a result that was
challenged on direct appeal and decided adversely to Ceplecha. The habeas court
7. “We have adopted the test for ineffective assistance of counsel set forth in
Strickland v. Washington: first, the defendant must show that counsel’s
performance was so deficient that he was not functioning as ‘counsel’
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment; and second, he must show that
counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.” Steiner v. Weber,
2011 S.D. 40, ¶ 6, 815 N.W.2d 549, 551–52 (citing Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)).
-8-
#30228
concluded that the claim that Ceplecha was actually innocent had been fully
litigated in Ceplecha I.
[¶21.] Specifically, the habeas court determined that Ceplecha I affirmed the
circuit court’s determination that Ceplecha’s self-defense claim would not have
succeeded at trial. For this reason, the habeas court also determined that
Ceplecha’s claim that Murphy was responsible for an inadequate factual basis at
the change of plea hearing was also barred because it turned on the likely success of
a self-defense claim. And so too was the specific claim that Murphy failed to
investigate the self-defense claim. Simply put, there could be no prejudice from the
failure to investigate a self-serving and frivolous defense.
[¶22.] The habeas court issued a certificate of probable cause, but it did not
reference the res judicata ruling. Instead, the certificate referred to the merits of
the ineffective assistance of counsel theories that the habeas court had not reached.
[¶23.] In his appellate brief, Ceplecha claimed the certificate of probable
cause is “intrinsically contradictory” and allowed a merits review of his individual
ineffective assistance of counsel arguments relating to self-defense. Ceplecha’s
initial appellate submissions did not address the habeas court’s res judicata ruling,
but the State’s brief did.
[¶24.] We concluded that the certificate of probable cause’s focus upon the
Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel necessarily contemplated
the basis upon which the habeas court had denied relief—res judicata—rather than
the merits. So, in an effort to allow the parties to develop their specific res judicata
-9-
#30228
arguments, we ordered supplemental briefing to address “[w]hether the doctrine of
res judicata bars Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”
Analysis and Decision
Res judicata in habeas cases
[¶25.] We have recognized that habeas corpus actions are exceptional in the
sense that they represent post-conviction, collateral attacks on otherwise final
judgments of conviction. See Piper v. Young, 2019 S.D. 65, ¶ 21, 936 N.W.2d 793,
803–04 (Piper IV) (citing cases and describing habeas corpus proceedings as
“collateral attack[s]” on final judgments and not “a substitute” for direct review).
Still, the ancient remedy, now codified in SDCL chapter 21-27, remains fixed as a
means of correcting certain types of errors in an underlying criminal action by
challenging the authority of an official to hold the petitioner.
[¶26.] However, not all alleged errors are cognizable in a habeas action.
Some claims, or necessary constituent parts of them, were either litigated on direct
appeal or could have been. These claims are subject to preclusion in a subsequent
habeas action under the doctrine of res judicata. In Piper IV, we recognized that
“even for claims alleging the deprivation of constitutional rights, we have
traditionally applied the doctrine of res judicata to determine whether a post-
conviction claim is cognizable in a habeas corpus action or whether it has been
defaulted because it was not made in an earlier proceeding.” 2019 S.D. 65, ¶ 22,
936 N.W.2d at 804.
[¶27.] We have recognized two “distinct” types of res judicata—issue
preclusion and claim preclusion:
-10-
#30228
Issue preclusion refers to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing
relitigation of a matter that has been litigated and decided . . . .
Claim preclusion refers to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing
litigation of a matter that never has been litigated, because of a
determination that it should have been advanced in an earlier
suit[.]
Id.; see also Ramos v. Weber, 2000 S.D. 111, ¶ 8, 616 N.W.2d 88, 91 (applying claim
preclusion to bar a petitioner’s claim that could have been litigated on direct appeal
but was not). 8
[¶28.] Here, the habeas court correctly determined that Ceplecha’s habeas
claims were each barred by res judicata because their common element was
previously litigated unsuccessfully on direct appeal. 9 For this reason, the court
determined that Ceplecha could not satisfy Strickland’s second prong relating to
prejudice without regard to whether Murphy’s representation was deficient or not.
See Jenner v. Dooley, 1999 S.D. 20, ¶ 16, 590 N.W.2d 463, 471 (quoting Strickland,
466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069) (adopting the United States Supreme Court rule
8. We have held that a habeas petition is subject to dismissal under SDCL 15-6-
12(b)(5) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and we
have suggested that the rule can be used in the context of res judicata. See
Riley v. Young, 2016 S.D. 39, ¶ 2 n.1, 879 N.W.2d 108, 110 n.1 (reviewing
dismissal under SDCL 15-6-12(b)(5) and noting applicability to an issue
barred by res judicata). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that
res judicata can serve as the basis for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), which corresponds to SDCL 15-6-12(b)(5). See C.H.
Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Lobrano, 695 F.3d 758, 764 (8th Cir. 2012)
(holding res judicata is an affirmative defense which can serve as a basis for
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when it is apparent from the “face of the
complaint” which includes “public records embraced by the complaint”).
9. We review a circuit court’s application of the doctrine of res judicata de novo.
Am. Fam. Ins. Grp. v. Robnik, 2010 S.D. 69, ¶ 14, 787 N.W.2d 768, 774
(citation omitted). We also apply the de novo standard to review a habeas
court’s decision to dismiss a petition as a matter of law and without receiving
evidence. Steiner, 2011 S.D. 40, ¶ 4, 815 N.W.2d at 551.
-11-
#30228
allowing a habeas court to move directly to Strickland’s prejudice analysis “[i]f it is
easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient
prejudice”).
[¶29.] For habeas cases involving underlying guilty pleas, the petitioner must
satisfy the prejudice requirement by establishing that “there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and
would have insisted on going to trial.” Piper IV, 2019 S.D. 65, ¶ 51, 936 N.W.2d at
811 (citation omitted). Ultimately, prejudice depends upon a court’s determination
that “in the absence of the guilty plea . . . the outcome of the proceeding would have
been different.” Id. (citation omitted).
[¶30.] As is relevant here, the habeas court distilled Ceplecha’s habeas claims
relating to Murphy’s alleged ineffectiveness to the following:
• Murphy “fail[ed] to advise[] Ceplecha on the affirmative
defense of self-defense.”
• Murphy “fail[ed] to ensure that Ceplecha provided an
adequate factual basis prior to entering a [guilty] plea.”
• Murphy “fail[ed] to investigate” a self-defense claim. 10
[¶31.] At the heart of these claims is the allegation that Murphy did not
advise Ceplecha of the potential for a self-defense claim. Where the ineffective
10. For the most part, Ceplecha’s description of his ineffective assistance of
counsel claims is consistent with the habeas court’s description with the
exception of Ceplecha’s appellate claim that Murphy “did not effectively [and]
zealously advocate for the withdrawal of the Petitioner’s guilty plea.” Based
upon our review of the amended habeas petition, this latter claim was not
alleged and was not before the habeas court. But even if it had been,
demonstrating prejudice depends upon the strength of Ceplecha’s self-defense
claim in the same way as the other specific claims.
-12-
#30228
assistance of counsel claims relate to the asserted “failure to advise the defendant of
a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the ‘prejudice’
inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have
succeeded at trial.” Steiner, 2011 S.D. 40, ¶ 9, 815 N.W.2d at 552 (quoting
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068). And so, without a colorable self-
defense claim, any failure by Murphy to advise of it, investigate it, or assure it was
discussed at the change of plea hearing would not satisfy Strickland’s second prong
requiring prejudice.
[¶32.] As the habeas court correctly recognized, the strength or sustainability
of Ceplecha’s self-defense claim was assessed initially by the circuit court in the
underlying prosecution. The circuit court determined that the self-defense claim
was “simply not credible” in connection with its consideration of whether Ceplecha
was legitimately asserting he was actually innocent. The same issue was squarely
presented before us on direct appeal in Ceplecha I, and we agreed with the circuit
court’s view that Ceplecha’s testimony about defending himself was purely self-
serving. Because the court had “weighed the Ceplechas’ claims of self-defense[,]” we
accepted the court’s “not credible” finding as it related to whether Ceplecha had a
sustainable claim of innocence, and we affirmed the court’s decision to deny
Ceplecha’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
[¶33.] The fact that the context for considering the self-defense claim was
different in Ceplecha I than it is here does not change the result. In fact, it
strengthens it because the standard for withdrawing a guilty plea prior to
-13-
#30228
sentencing seems to be more favorable to a defendant than the standard for
prejudice under Strickland is for a habeas petitioner.
[¶34.] Where a defendant makes a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant
to SDCL 23A-27-11 prior to sentencing, as Ceplecha did, “a court should exercise its
discretion liberally in favor of withdrawal.” Ceplecha I, 2020 S.D. 11, ¶ 38, 940
N.W.2d at 694 (quoting State v. Kvasnicka, 2016 S.D. 2, ¶ 8, 873 N.W.2d 705, 708).
A defendant need only demonstrate a “fair and just” reason for withdrawal. Id.
¶ 39, 940 N.W.2d at 694 (quoting United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670, 671, 117 S.
Ct. 1630, 1631, 137 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1997)). We have also held that a request to
withdraw a guilty plea may not be “frivolous.” Schmidt, 2012 S.D. 77, ¶ 15, 825
N.W.2d at 894 (quoting State v. Olson, 2012 S.D. 55, ¶ 18, 816 N.W.2d 830, 835–36).
[¶35.] By contrast, Srickland’s prejudice showing focuses upon a more
rigorous, outcome-determinative inquiry. A habeas petitioner who pled guilty must
establish that the petitioner would not have pled guilty and that a previously
unasserted defense “would have succeeded at trial.” Steiner, 2011 S.D. 40, ¶ 9, 815
N.W.2d at 552 (citation omitted).
[¶36.] Here, the circuit court’s determination that Ceplecha’s self-defense
claim was “simply not credible,” after receiving argument and testimony, equated to
a determination that it was frivolous—a conclusion we affirmed in Ceplecha I. This
necessarily precludes a contrary showing that the self-defense claim is meritorious
enough to justify habeas relief. Indeed, allowing Ceplecha to now argue that his
self-defense claim was meritorious—so much so that he would likely have succeeded
-14-
#30228
at trial—would effectively overrule our decision in Ceplecha I affirming the circuit
court’s decision to deny his request to withdraw his guilty plea.
[¶37.] Ceplecha relates this case to our decision in Steiner, claiming “[t]his
case is the same as Steiner and the Petitioner should be able to have a hearing.” We
do not think the comparison to Steiner is apt. In Steiner, our decision to reverse the
dismissal of the petitioner’s habeas petition and remand the case for an evidentiary
hearing was a reflection of the underdeveloped state of the record. As it related
specifically to the prejudice inquiry, we observed that “this Court is not in a position
to speculate as to whether Steiner would have been successful if he had taken his
case to trial. Nor was the circuit court in such a position when ruling on the motion
to dismiss.” Steiner, 2011 S.D. 40, ¶ 11, 815 N.W.2d at 553.
[¶38.] This case is much different. Here, the circuit court was in a position to
assess the strength of Ceplecha’s self-defense claim in the underlying prosecution,
and we recognized as much with our holding in Ceplecha I. Ceplecha and his son
both testified, and the circuit court received written briefs from both parties.
Ceplecha’s brief raised the very topic he presses now in this habeas action—that he
conflated the “unintentional killing” aspect of manslaughter with a lack of intent to
kill when acting in self-defense. The circuit court rejected the claim, and we
affirmed that determination. Ceplecha cannot relitigate the same issue now in the
form of a collateral challenge to his final conviction.
[¶39.] In his supplemental brief, Ceplecha argues res judicata should not
apply because it was “not substantially raised before the trial court . . . , nor on
direct appeal.” In his view, Murphy should have developed Ceplecha’s testimony
-15-
#30228
more by asking him specific questions “about how [Ceplecha] had to resort to self-
defense[.]”
[¶40.] Although it is true that the application of res judicata requires, among
other things, “a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior
adjudication[,]” Healy Ranch, Inc. v. Healy, 2022 S.D. 43, ¶ 42, 978 N.W.2d 786, 799
(citation omitted), the opportunity that is necessary must be viewed in the context
of the proceeding at issue. When the self-defense claim was first presented to the
circuit court, it was offered as a reason to allow Ceplecha to withdraw his guilty
plea to first-degree manslaughter. Ceplecha did not need to prove that he had, in
fact, acted in self-defense or even that he was likely to succeed at a trial. Instead,
Ceplecha needed only to satisfy the relatively modest standard that there was a fair
and just, non-frivolous reason to allow him to withdraw the plea.
[¶41.] Beyond this, there is no reason to think that Murphy’s questions were
insufficient to elicit the details of Ceplecha’s self-defense theory. Murphy asked
Ceplecha in multiple ways why he thought he was not guilty of manslaughter. Our
review of the hearing transcript from Ceplecha’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea
leads us to conclude that it was Ceplecha, not Murphy, who ultimately failed to
support the belated self-defense theory with specific details, either in the responses
Ceplecha provided, or in his prepared remarks that he read during his direct
examination. Perhaps more importantly, Ceplecha did not state that he pled guilty
because he was uncertain that he had a self-defense claim. Rather, Ceplecha
testified that he pled guilty “so that [he and his son] could be together and possibly
get parole.”
-16-
#30228
[¶42.] Finally, Ceplecha argues for the first time in his supplemental brief
that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for new counsel. We think
that the argument is not cognizable for several reasons, not the least of which is the
fact that Celplecha did not make this argument in his direct appeal. But he could
have, and, in fact, Rangler did make that argument in his own appeal. See supra at
n.6. Murphy did not represent Ceplecha on direct appeal—two other attorneys did.
Under the circumstances, any claim relating to the circuit court’s decision to deny
Ceplecha’s motion for new counsel is barred under the claim preclusion feature of
res judicata.
[¶43.] Under the circumstances, we conclude that Ceplecha cannot relitigate
the efficacy of a self-defense claim in this habeas corpus proceeding. The issue was
fully litigated before the circuit court and again on direct appeal. The habeas court
correctly applied res judicata to determine Ceplecha could not, in any event,
demonstrate prejudice under the Strickland test. We affirm.
[¶44.] JENSEN, Chief Justice, and KERN and MYREN, Justices, concur.
[¶45.] DEVANEY, Justice, who deemed herself disqualified, did not
participate.
-17-