Court Opinion

ID: 9852589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:33:18.674253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:30.306130
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Acting Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
In 1966, the legislature enacted the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. Chapter 121, Session Laws of 1966, Section 1, provided, among other things, the Act “comprehends and takes the place of all other common law, statutory or other remedies which have heretofore been available for challenging the validity of the conviction or sentence, and shall be used exclusively in place of them.” In a comment to the Act by the Commissioners on uniform state laws, they stated:
The aim of this section is to bring together and consolidate into one simple statute all the remedies, beyond those that are incident to the usual procedures of trial and review, which are at present available for challenging the validity of a sentence of imprisonment.
Section 1 of the proposed act is aimed to incorporate and protect all rights presently available under habeas corpus, cor-*141am nobis, or other remedies. The change is a procedural one.
See 11 ULA at 486.
As stated in the majority opinion, the 1983 Legislature repealed the Post Conviction Procedure Act, S.D.Sess.L. 1983, ch. 169, section 15, incorporating a large part within the Habeas Corpus Act. See SDCL ch. 21-27. The purpose of this change was to eliminate judicial review of convictions except as authorized by the Habeas Corpus Act, as amended.
In my opinion, the legislature preempted the writ of coram nobis — if it ever existed in South Dakota — when they adopted the Post Conviction Procedure Act, repealed it, and broadened the habeas corpus remedy. See, e.g., State v. Iverson, 79 Ida. 25, 310 P.2d 803 (1957).
In this case, Brockmueller admitted the convictions contained in part two of the information. He never challenged them, appealed, nor brought a pdst-conviction proceeding before its repeal. There was to be some finality to a judgment. Brock-mueller could have challenged the convictions prior to admitting them. Honomichl did not change the law, it merely educated Brockmueller and others.
One of the requirements of the Writ is that it will lie only to correct errors of fact and not errors of law. 18 Am.Jur.2d Cor-am Nobis § 3; 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1606(2)(a); State v. Becker, 263 Minn. 168, 115 N.W.2d 920, 921 (1962); State v. Turner, 194 Neb. 252, 231 N.W.2d 345 (1975).
Since the issue raised here is lack of knowledge of the legal effect of Honom-ichl, supra, and not lack of knowledge of any fact or facts, a Writ of Coram Nobis will not lie.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice FOSHEIM joins in this dissent.