Rosen v. Weber
810 N.W.2d 763
S.D.2012Background
- Garry Rosen pleaded guilty to kidnapping; he challenged voluntariness via habeas corpus.
- Arraignment in 2003 advised of rights but not that a guilty plea would waive Boykin rights (jury, compulsory process, self-incrimination).
- Change-of-plea hearing in 2004 advised only that a guilty plea would waive the right to a trial, not the full Boykin rights; Rosen pled guilty to one count.
- Rosen moved to withdraw plea a month later, citing misunderstandings of certain rights; court explained rights but again did not advise about Boykin waiver; he withdrew the motion.
- Sentencing occurred two days later; no further rights advisement at sentencing, but Rosen could withdraw plea; he chose to proceed with sentencing.
- In 2010, Rosen petitioned for habeas relief arguing involuntariness due to lack of Boykin waiver advisement and canvassing; habeas court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did lack of Boykin canvassing render the plea invalid? | Rosen | State | Yes; plea invalid; remand for voiding plea. |
| Can totality-of-circumstances analysis cure absence of Boykin canvassing? | Rosen | State | No; without canvass, cannot rely on totality; require explicit waiver record. |
| Was the record silent or explicit about Boykin waivers? | Rosen | State | Record silent on Boykin waiver; cannot assume waiver from silence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court (1969)) (requires advisement and explicit waiver of three rights)
- Monette v. Weber, 2009 S.D. 77 (S.D. 2009) (no canvassing means no basis to find waiver; strict standard for habeas)
- State v. Goodwin, 2004 S.D. 75 (S.D. 2004) (explicit waiver required; cannot rely on silence)
- Nachtigall v. Erickson, 178 N.W.2d 198 (S.D. 1970) (recitation formula not strictly required; focus on understanding)
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court (1992)) (plea must be knowing and voluntary; waiver must be understood)
- State v. Apple, 759 N.W.2d 283 (S.D. 2008) (evaluates sufficiency of rights advisement and waiver record)
- Quist v. Leapley, 486 N.W.2d 265 (S.D. 1992) (requirements for waiver and voluntariness in plea proceedings)
- State v. Moeller, 511 N.W.2d 803 (S.D. 1994) (limits on appellate review in habeas actions; deference to record)
- State v. Jensen, 2011 S.D. 32 (S.D. 2011) (habeas review standards applied to plea validity)