Court Opinion

ID: 9738124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:43:13.595541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.855193
License: Public Domain

HENDEKSON, Justice
(dissenting).
In keeping with the spirit of my dissent in State v. King, 400 N.W.2d 878, 881 (S.D.1987), as well as the authorities recited therein, I dissent.
This conviction should be reversed and set aside with the case being remanded to the trial court for re-arraignment. Thereby, we would protect the integrity of arraignments in this state and serve the constitutional rights of this petitioner. So far as I can determine, Judge Hurd advised petitioner of (1) his right to a jury trial and (2) his right of confrontation and cross-examination. Silent is the record concerning the loss of privilege against self-incrimination. See continued arraignment hearing on June 24,1985, at 3-4. Petitioner’s original arraignment was on May 6, 1985. See trial arraignment, at 1-8. At said time, petitioner was advised, in detail, of the nature of the offenses, the possible penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights. However, pleas were entered at that time and no advice was tendered to petitioner that a nolo contendere plea would waive the right against self-incrimination.
Judge Kean’s arraignment of March 18, 1985, cannot bootstrap the State’s position even though an advisement was made against self-incrimination if petitioner pleaded guilty, for, thereat, petitioner was facing a totally different charge. In Clark v. State, 294 N.W.2d 916 (S.D.1980), we held, inter alia, that a record must show the defendant had knowledge of his rights and the consequences of the guilty plea at the time it is entered. Here, we have a record which does not meet the Clark criterion.
It is to be further noted that Judge Kean’s advice pertained to the consequences of a guilty -plea and not to the consequences of a nolo contendere plea. This Court assumes too much. Petitioner cannot be expected to know that the privilege against self-incrimination is waived by either a guilty plea or nolo contendere plea. Judge Kean did not refer to a nolo contendere plea. Judge Hurd did not refer to a nolo contendere plea at the May 6, 1985 arraignment. Nolo contendere, as a plea, was never advised by any judge until Judge Hurd mentioned the consequences of such a plea on June 24, 1985. Did petitioner understand that his nolo contendere plea would amount to a loss of his privilege against self-incrimination? Nothing in the record supports it. It is not in the arraignment before Judge Kean; it is not in the arraignment before Judge Hurd; it is not in the continued arraignment before Judge Hurd; and it is not in the habeas corpus *720hearing/proceedings before Judge Heege. Let us delve further into the factual background of this case: (1) In the first arraignment before Judge Hurd, petitioner was not advised of the consequences of a possible plea; (2) in the arraignment before Judge Kean, he was advised only of the consequences of a guilty plea which pertained to a different charge; (3) only at the continued arraignment before Judge Hurd, was the petitioner advised of the consequences of a plea of nolo contendere, which advisement suffered dreadfully and constitutionally from an omission: loss of petitioner’s privilege against self-incrimination. South Dakota Constitution, BILL OF RIGHTS, article VI, § 7, provides:
In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to defend in person and by counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses against him face to face; to have compulsory process served for obtaining witnesses in his behalf, and to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.
This mirrors the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Our state constitution added the provision of furnishing a copy of the Information. These rights “are fundamental in character, and the failure of the court to protect them in a criminal prosecution is a denial of due process of law. U.S. Const. Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; S.D. Const, art. VI, § 2; Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527 [1932].” State v. Jameson, 71 S.D. 144, 146, 22 N.W.2d 731, 732 (1946). See also S.D. Const., BILL OF RIGHTS, art. VI, § 9, which provides: “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”
In summation, petitioner’s plea was involuntary and will not support the conviction and the sentence upon which it is based. The last sentence of appellant’s reply brief is that petitioner did not know a nolo contendere plea would surrender the three rights set forth in my dissent in State v. King and the constitutional infirmities arising from a failure of a free and intelligent waiver of the three constitutional rights mentioned in Boykin — self-incrimination — confrontation—jury trial. We adopted these principles of Boykin in Nachtigall v. Erickson, 85 S.D. 122, 178 N.W.2d 198 (1970). And we additionally imposed that a defendant have an understanding of the nature and consequences of a plea of guilty. See commentary in Clark, 294 N.W.2d at 919.
For the majority opinion to characterize petitioner as having failed to assert that he was unaware of this privilege and not arguing that he was unaware of waiving that right (self-incrimination) does not fairly present the contentions of petitioner’s brief.
When the Constitution was written, it represented a dramatic idea to perpetuate a free people’s right to be governed by themselves under, prayerfully, an enduring document. We approach its 200th anniversary. I cannot join this opinion as I am convinced Logan has been denied his constitutional rights.