856 N.W.2d 167
S.D.2014Background
- Harold Chant was charged with DUI in Pennington County (Dec. 2012); a Part II Information alleged two prior DUI convictions (2004 and 2006) for enhancement to a third-offense DUI.
- Chant moved to strike the 2004 conviction, arguing that his 2004 guilty plea was constitutionally defective because the court failed to re-advise rights and failed to inquire into voluntariness at the plea hearing.
- The circuit court denied the motion, found the 2004 plea knowing and voluntary, and entered judgment for third-offense DUI after a stipulated-facts trial.
- On appeal, the State argued more broadly that a defendant represented by counsel should not be permitted to collaterally attack a prior conviction used for enhancement; Chant argued the 2004 plea was constitutionally infirm.
- The Supreme Court of South Dakota reconsidered its prior practice of allowing collateral attacks beyond uncounseled pleas in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
- The court held that, consistent with federal precedent, only prior convictions obtained without counsel may be collaterally attacked for enhancement purposes and therefore declined to reach whether Chant’s 2004 plea was valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant who was represented by counsel may collaterally attack a prior conviction used for sentence enhancement | State: counseled defendants should not be allowed to collaterally attack predicate convictions | Chant: the 2004 plea was constitutionally infirm (no re-advisal/inquiry into voluntariness) and thus unusable for enhancement | Court: Only uncounseled predicate pleas may be collaterally attacked; because of that rule, the court need not decide validity of the 2004 plea; affirmed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (holds only uncounseled prior convictions may be collaterally attacked for enhancement)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (right to appointed counsel established)
- State v. King, 383 N.W.2d 854 (S.D. 1986) (South Dakota previously allowed broader collateral attacks)
- Sharp v. Sharp, 422 N.W.2d 443 (S.D. 1988) (appellate review of issues raised for first time on appeal)
- State v. Bilben, 846 N.W.2d 336 (S.D. 2014) (discusses South Dakota practice on collateral attacks and related dissent)