Opinion ID: 2229974
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether deserly's failure to appear at the dispositional hearing was a violation of sdcl 23a-43-31.

Text: Deserly acknowledges that he did not appear at the December 12, 1988 dispositional conference. However, he asserts his failure to appear was not a violation of SDCL 23A-43-31 for two reasons. First, he argues that he was not ordered to appear before a court or judicial officer. Second, he contends he did not receive notice that he was supposed to appear. SDCL 23A-43-31 does not require an order. It only discusses failure to appear before any court or judicial officer as required. Nevertheless, Deserly was ordered to appear before the court by the terms of the magistrate's order and the personal recognizance and appearance bond he read and signed. Moreover, Deserly was also ordered to appear in court by the Order Setting Dispositional Conference signed for the court on December 1, 1988 by the deputy clerk of court. Deserly's counsel met with him on December 5, 1988 and reminded him of his obligation to appear on December 12, 1988. Yet, Deserly failed to appear in court on December 12, 1988. His failure to appear constituted a violation of SDCL 23A-43-31. The habeas court is affirmed.