Court Opinion

ID: 9705994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:29:26.10772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:35.471773
License: Public Domain

ZASTROW, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
As I understand the defendant’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea, it was based upon the advise of his new counsel that the right to appeal the legality of the search of his car would have been waived by the guilty plea. From the majority’s position here and in State v. Jordan, 1978, S.D., 261 N.W.2d 126, that advice was sound.
As I understand the record, the state’s attorney and trial judge maintained that a withdrawal of the plea was not necessary because his right to appeal from the denial of the motion to suppress was not waived.1
Thus the defendant’s guilty plea was entered upon the basis of the trial court’s incorrect opinion that the right of appeal would not be waived. If the motion to withdraw the guilty plea resulted in a delay, it appears that it was caused more by the representations of the assistant attorney general, the state’s attorney, the trial court, South Dakota defense counsel and out-of-state defense counsel than by the defendant himself.
If there was any prejudice caused to the state, it was not because of the defendant’s guilty plea, but by the incorrect assurances by the attorneys and trial court that the ruling on the motion to suppress could be appealed. Furthermore, I am unable to find that the state would have been prejudiced by the withdrawal when the assistant attorney general was willing to stipulate to the withdrawal on the condition that the habitual criminal count be refiled and the matter set for trial.
The plea bargain should either be honored and the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress be reviewed by this court (see Jackson v. State, 1974, Fla.App., 294 So.2d 114)2 or because the plea agreement cannot be accomplished, the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his plea (see United States v. Caraway, 1973, 5th Cir., 474 F.2d 25; United States v. Mizell, 1973, 5th Cir., 488 F.2d 97; United States v. Cox, 1972, 6th Cir., 464 F.2d 937).

. I hasten to point out that in State v. Max, 1978, S.D., 263 N.W.2d 685, the defendant waived a jury trial and stipulated to a court trial based upon the preliminary hearing transcript in order to preserve his right to appeal from an adverse ruling on a motion to suppress physical evidence.

. Such a position would not be consistent with State v. Jordan, supra, because there the reservation of the right to appeal the suppression issue was not the basis of the guilty plea and the defendant was specifically advised that it would be waived.