Opinion ID: 1913160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in enhancing heftel's sentence due to the manner in which the part ii information was filed?

Text: Heftel was arraigned on the assault charge on September 29, 1992. State filed a Part II Information in that proceeding and Heftel admitted he had been provided a copy. At that arraignment, Heftel's attorney requested that the court delay arraignment on the grand theft count. The judge granted the motion. On October 13, 1992, Heftel was arraigned on the grand theft charge, child abuse charges and again arraigned on the charge of simple assault. During the proceeding, the following exchange took place: THE COURT: I see a Part II Information has been filed in that matter [referring to the child abuse charges]. Was this Part II Information to be also filed in 92-847? MS. BRADY: Your HonorIs 847 the grand theft, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MS. BRADY: Yes, Your Honor. That was the one I put on your desk this morning. THE COURT: All right[.] The court then proceeded to read each prior felony from the Information, questioned Heftel as to whether he understood each allegation, and then informed Heftel as to the possible sentence enhancements under the habitual offender act. At each juncture, the court ensured Heftel understood the charges. The court then asked whether Heftel had received a copy of the Information. Heftel replied that he had. [3] A Part II Information charging the defendant with being an habitual criminal must be filed at the time of arraignment or before. SDCL 22-7-11. [4] When permitted by the court, documents may be filed with the judge rather than the clerk of courts. SDCL 15-6-5(e) provides: The filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as required by this chapter shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court, except that the judge may permit the papers to be filed with him, in which event he shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk. (Emphasis added.) Heftel claims that the Part II Information was not filed at the time of his arraignment because the Information was date stamped by the clerk of courts on October 14, 1992, rather than being signed by the judge on October 13, 1992, the date of the arraignment. [5] We have held that because of its highly penal nature, the habitual offender act should be strictly construed. State v. Loop, 422 N.W.2d 420 (S.D.1988); State v. Graycek, 368 N.W.2d 815 (1985). This is to ensure that a defendant is fully aware, at the time he is arraigned and pleads to the principal felony, of the habitual offender information and the possibility of an enhanced sentence. Loop, 422 N.W.2d at 423; Graycek, 368 N.W.2d at 818; Black v. Erickson, 86 S.D. 86, 191 N.W.2d 174 (1971). However, when the purpose of the act has been fulfilled and the defendant can claim no surprise, prejudice or disadvantage, we have not reversed habitual criminal convictions because State failed to technically comply with the habitual offender act. Graycek, 368 N.W.2d at 818 (finding no jurisdictional defect where trial court sentenced defendant as habitual offender in conjunction with failure to appear charge where no information had been filed, because state had filed the information in relation to three felony charges later dismissed by plea bargain); State v. Grooms, 339 N.W.2d 318 (S.D.1983) (finding no jurisdictional defect where state failed to refile information with refiled indictment following mistrial); State v. Alexander, 313 N.W.2d 33 (S.D.1981) (finding no defect where state failed to refile information with amended indictment); accord, State v. Brennan, 2 S.D. 384, 392, 50 N.W. 625, 627 (1891) (finding no error where court was not mentioned in caption of information as defendant could not, by reason of this, have been surprised, misled, left in doubt, or have lost any advantage in the preparation of his defense); cf. Black v. Erickson, 86 S.D. at 90, 191 N.W.2d at 176-77 (affirming trial court's grant of habeas corpus where habitual criminal information was filed after guilty plea); Honomichl v. State, 333 N.W.2d 797 (S.D. 1983) (holding conviction invalid where no information had ever been filed). Other jurisdictions have applied similar reasoning in cases concerning the filing of an information. United States v. Brown, 921 F.2d 1304 (D.C.Cir.1990) (finding no error where judge accepted habitual criminal information in court on day of trial where defendant had prior notice); Durley v. State, 685 S.W.2d 284, 286 (Mo.App.1985) (determining the word filed stamped on habitual criminal information is not exclusive proof of filing, to be filed with the court the information need only be deposited with the clerk or the judge); Williams v. State, 767 S.W.2d 868, 872 (Tex.App.1989) (holding lack of file mark on enhancement information does not void conviction where other court documents show information was filed before conviction was obtained). Heftel was fully advised by the court at the arraignment of the Part II Information and its possible consequences. Further, he suffered no prejudice due to the fact that the information was date stamped by the clerk of courts the following day rather than being signed by the judge the day of the arraignment. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. WUEST and SABERS, JJ., concur. HENDERSON and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.