Court Opinion

ID: 9855368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:23:32.92422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:55.831627
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(specially concurring).
We have, before us, a collateral attack on a conviction and sentence via habeas corpus. Applicant/appellant Lee did not appeal his conviction/sentence. Now, he employs the great old writ of liberty for aid. Although the procedure in securing the conviction was irregular and a judicial “short-cut” and quite informalistic in nature, I cannot bring myself to vote for a reversal of the habeas court. Assuredly, the procedure employed by the sentencing court was not a modicum of judicial exactitude. Further, I would discourage similar procedures in the future in our courts of this state.
We must remember the scope of review for habeas corpus proceedings. Quite recently, in Cowell v. Leapley, 458 N.W.2d 514 (S.D.1990), this Court reaffirmed the standard of review as set forth in McCafferty v. Solem, 449 N.W.2d 590, 591-92 (S.D.1989) wherein we expressed:
The remedy of post-conviction habeas corpus is restricted by the provisions of SDCL 21-27-16 and the prior decisions of this court. The statutory provisions were fairly well summarized in our decision, State v. Erickson, 80 S.D. 639, 129 N.W.2d 712 (1964), wherein we pointed out that, since the remedy is in the nature of a collateral attack upon a final judgment, the scope of review in habeas corpus proceedings is limited. As we said: habeas corpus can be used only to review (1) whether the court had jurisdiction of the crime and the person of the defendant; (2) whether the sentence was authorized by law; and (3) in certain cases, whether an incarcerated defendant has been deprived of basic constitutional rights. Id., 80 S.D. at 645, 129 N.W.2d at 716. See also, Goodroad v. Solem, 406 N.W.2d 141 (S.D.1987). Habeas corpus is not a proper remedy to correct irregular procedures, rather habeas corpus reaches only jurisdictional error. Id. 406 N.W.2d at 143; SDCL 21-27-16. For purposes of habeas corpus, constitutional violations in a criminal case deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Goodroad, 406 N.W.2d at 143; Podoll v. Solem, 408 N.W.2d 759 (S.D.1987) ... Further, we may not upset the ha-beas court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. SDCL 15-6-52(a); Satter v. Solem, 422 N.W.2d 425 (S.D.1988). (emphasis supplied mine).
We must review this case in light of our previous holdings.
Was a basic constitutional 'right violated? Or do we have an irregular procedure below? As I review this case, my analysis is that we must focus on these immediate concepts.
Initially, I note the transcript of 11 a.m., July 15, 1987, is denoted COURT TRIAL. In the June 19, 1989, deposition of Attorney Braithwaite, at pages 14 and 15, Braithwaite testified (for the habeas corpus court):
A. All right. The Judge, after granting the Motion to Withdraw, which would have automatically reinstated the not guilty pleas, asked if I wanted a trial or if there was going to be a stipulation. Now, the Judge knew from private conversations with Welk and I *845that a stipulation was coining, so it was a rhetorical question, and I said that we would stipulate that the Judge could try the case based upon the Police Reports which had been furnished to him, and that was the agreement Welk and I had. (emphasis supplied mine).
Therefore, it appears that a court trial was to be held, and actually was held, by way of stipulation. I buttress this conclusion by the following excerpt from the abbreviated (to say the least) trial:
Judge Hurd: Now do you want to have a trial or do you want to stipulate facts or stipulate testimony?
Mr. Braithwaite: It would be a stipulation, assuming the State is willing to stipulate, that the matter be decided by Your Honor based upon the police reports which have already been furnished to you. (emphasis supplied mine). Judge Hurd: Are you willing to stipulate to that, Mr. Welk?
Mr. Welk: Yes, Your Honor. As it was the factual basis for the plea, we believe the police reports establish the essential elements of the offense.
Judge Hurd: The Court, of course, is familiar with those police reports. I have considered those police reports. I will accept the stipulation of counsel that if the witnesses referred to in those reports were called to testify they would testify in conformity with those reports. Based upon those reports, I find that each of the essential elements of the crimes to which the defendant previously entered a nolo contendere plea have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and I hereby find the defendant guilty and adjudicate him guilty of said offenses pursuant to that testimony.... (emphasis supplied mine).
Indeed, the police reports were incriminating and did, in law, establish the essential elements of the two offenses. Moreover, I note at page 21 of this same transcript, that Attorney Braithwaite testified “We did not stipulate to the facts, we stipulated that the Judge could determine guilt or innocence based upon the Police Reports.”
These police reports were not entered into evidence; they were not marked as exhibits. Facts, per se, were not stipulated into the record. However, the police reports were admitted at the habeas corpus hearing. This permitted Judge Kean, sitting as the habeas court, the opportunity to review exactly that which Judge Hurd considered, acting as the trial court. Therefore, the habeas court had, in effect, testimony of the police because the police would have, via stipulation, testified in conformity with the reports.
A more preferable procedure would have been to mark the police reports as exhibits and then receive them into evidence. They constituted the only evidence and the State’s entire case. If this was, indeed, a “Court Trial,” and I am of the opinion that it was, albeit brief and informal, the trial judge could have accomplished a more meaningful “trial” by asking if either side had any witnesses to be called (other than testimony, via police reports). And could have asked if there was any other evidence to be presented. Bringing the “trial” to a formal closing by words from the bench would have imbued the proceeding with a more dignified, formal air. This was, after all, a felony court “trial” which resulted in one ten year sentence to the State Penitentiary and, also, a one year sentence to the State Penitentiary, same to run concurrently.
In reality, Lee is appealing on a procedural point; habeas corpus is the wrong vehicle. Precedent is against his position for non-constitutional errors are not jurisdictional and inappropriate for habeas consideration. Podoll v. Solem, 408 N.W.2d 759, 761 (S.D.1987).
Lastly, I am smitten by the “about-face” legal position of Lee. His entreaty has a certain ring of duplicity. He acquiesced in this abbreviated, informal procedure without any objection. To use the great writ of liberty to retrieve himself from that in which he did willingly abide is to employ it for an ignoble purpose. Thus, I specially join the majority opinion.