Opinion ID: 2075099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: appellant escalante

Text: As noted, Escalante argues that a prior DWI conviction used to sustain his conviction as a habitual DWI offender is invalid based upon the signature of an unlicensed prosecuting attorney on the complaint leading to the conviction. We disagree. Unlike SDCL 23A-6-4 which requires that an information be signed by a prosecuting attorney, there is no such requirement for a complaint. The only statutory requirements for signing a complaint are set forth in SDCL 23A-2-1: A complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting an offense charged. It must be signed under oath before a person authorized to administer oaths in the state of South Dakota. Sokoll signed the complaint against Escalante under oath before a notary public. A notary public is a person authorized to administer oaths in this state. SDCL 18-3-1. Therefore, Sokoll met all of the requirements of SDCL 23A-2-1. Moreover, Escalante stipulated before the trial court that a valid information was filed in the case. As we have discussed, this conferred subject matter jurisdiction on the trial court to proceed on the charge and enter a judgment of conviction. Honomichl, supra . Accordingly, Escalante's contentions concerning invalidity of the prior conviction are without merit. Affirmed. MORGAN, SABERS and MILLER, JJ., concur. HENDERSON, J., concurs with writing.