Court Opinion

ID: 9669439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:56:10.964636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:56.788421
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
A review of the appeal record reveals a jurisdictional defect which is controlling. The time to file a motion for new trial is jurisdictional. SDCL 23A-32-15 provides in part:
An appeal from the judgment must be taken within thirty days after the judgment is signed, attested and filed.
The running of the time for filing a notice of appeal is terminated by a timely motion [for new trial]....
(emphasis added). SDCL 23A-29-1, which governs motions for new trial in criminal actions, provides in part:
A motion for new trial ... shall be served and filed not later than ten days after filing of the judgment.
(emphasis added).
In this case, the record reflects that: 1) Judgment was filed in trial court on February 7, 1991; 2) Motion for new trial was filed in trial court on February 21, 1991; and 3) Notice of appeal was filed in trial court on April 1, 1991. Accordingly, the last date for filing a motion for new trial would have been February 18, 1991, the first business day following the 10th day, which fell on a Sunday. Therefore, the last date for appeal would have been March 11, 1991, the first business day following the 30th day, which fell on a Saturday. Because Lykken’s motion for new trial was not made within the 10 days following the filing of the judgment, the appeal time was not tolled. As noted above, the appeal was not filed until April 1, 1991. Therefore, we have no choice but to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. State v. Waters, 472 N.W.2d 524, 525 (S.D.1991); State v. Hare, 260 N.W.2d 224, 225-26 (S.D.1977).