Opinion ID: 1236280
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: enhancement of punishment based upon prior dwi conviction

Text: Michalek argues that the trial court had no jurisdiction to enhance punishment because a judgment of conviction in a prior Jackson County case referred to a complaint being filed, rather than an information. A judgment of conviction need only set forth the plea, the verdict or findings, and the adjudication and sentence. SDCL 23A-27-4. However, if an information was not filed in a particular case, the conviction would be invalid and enhanced punishment based upon the conviction would be constitutionally infirm. Honomichl v. State, 333 N.W.2d 797 (S.D.1983). The court must look to the record, not the judgment of conviction, to determine the validity of the Jackson County conviction. The record shows that an information, not a complaint, was used in the Jackson County offense. Therefore, Michalek's argument that the conviction was defective on its face is without merit.