Court Opinion

ID: 9702386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:09:18.931945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:38.118596
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I concur in Justice Wollman’s dissent. This defendant had been convicted of a prior felony in February 1974. The fact that the trial judge tried to rehabilitate this young defendant under the provisions of SDCL 39-17-113 cannot change this conviction. Moreover, the defendant was still on probation from the first offense when he committed the present offense. According*123ly, his record had not been cleared even under SDCL 39-17-113. To permit this defendant to “play games” with a statute devised to rehabilitate young offenders is distasteful to my sense of justice and should not be permitted. I would affirm.