Court Opinion

ID: 9659816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:55:08.226055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:11.746192
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I would reverse.
The United States Supreme Court held in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 1972, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530, that the Sixth Amendment provides standards for all criminal prosecutions. The right to counsel is a basic right of a criminal defendant.
“ * * * absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.” 407 U.S. at 37, 92 S.Ct. at 2012, 32 L.Ed.2d at 538.
The court ruled that only in cases where no imprisonment is to be imposed does there exist no requirement of a right to counsel.
This court has long recognized the right of a defendant to conduct his own defense. In order to exercise his constitutional right to proceed pro se, a defendant must make a “knowing and intelligent” waiver of his right to counsel. State v. Thomlinson, 1960, 78 S.D. 235, 100 N.W.2d 121; State v. Haas, 1943, 69 S.D. 204, 8 N.W.2d 569. See Faret-ta v. California, supra. Absent such waiver there is a jurisdictional bar to a valid conviction. Johnson v. Zerbst, 1938, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461.
According to the record, the following was the only inquiry as to defendant’s waiver of counsel:
“THE COURT: Do you understand the nature of the charge that has been filed against you? Do you understand what the charge is?
“MR. MILLER: Yeah, I’m charged with Driving While Intoxicated.
“THE COURT: That’s commonly known as Driving While Intoxicated, but more specifically you are charged with being in actual physical control of a vehicle while there is more than 10% (sic), 10% or more by weight of alcohol in your blood. That is the specific charge, and so do you understand specifically what you are being charged with?
“MR. MILLER: Yes.
*65“THE COURT: Now, you indicated when we had, I suppose you might refer to it as a supplementary Call of the Calendar in my chambers, and you indicated that you would waive your right to have an attorney, is that correct?
“MR. MILLER: (No response.)
“THE COURT: Is it your intention to enter a plea of not guilty?
“MR. MILLER: I plead not guilty.”
This cannot be construed as a “knowing and intelligent” waiver of counsel; in fact, it cannot be construed to be a waiver of any kind.