State v. Duncan
2017 SD 24
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Steven R. Duncan was arrested on Sept 4, 2015 after a vehicle crash and held in custody; charged with one felony (vehicular battery/DUIs) and multiple misdemeanors.
- A formal complaint was filed by Lincoln County on Sept 8, 2015; the court conducted a paper review, found probable cause, and set bond (Duncan did not post bond).
- A grand jury indicted Duncan on Sept 12, 2015; a part II information alleged five prior DUI convictions to elevate the DUI to a felony.
- Duncan’s first in-court appearance before a judicial officer occurred at arraignment on Oct 5, 2015; trial was originally set for Dec 9 and later continued; Duncan never waived the 180-day rule.
- Duncan moved to dismiss on March 15, 2016 arguing the State violated SDCL 23A-44-5.1 by not bringing him to trial within 180 days, claiming his constructive appearance on Sept 8 should start the 180-day clock.
- The circuit court denied the motion; jury convicted Duncan of DUI and following too closely and later found the prior DUI convictions, resulting in a sixth-offense DUI sentence. Duncan appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 180-day period under SDCL 23A-44-5.1 began on Sept 8, 2015 (complaint/paper review) or Oct 5, 2015 (first in-court appearance) | The State: 180 days begins when defendant first appears before a judicial officer in person (Oct 5). | Duncan: His constructive appearance on Sept 8 (paper review/complaint) sufficed to start the 180-day clock; alternatively, custody + formal complaint distinguish this case from precedent. | Court held 180 days commenced on Oct 5, 2015 when Duncan first appeared before a judicial officer; no violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sorensen, 597 N.W.2d 682 (S.D. 1999) (holds 180-day period begins when defendant appears on a charging document before a judicial officer)
- State v. Hetzel, 598 N.W.2d 867 (S.D. 1999) (applies Sorensen principle; 180-day clock starts at judicial appearance on indictment)
- State v. Seaboy, 729 N.W.2d 370 (S.D. 2007) (standard of review: de novo for 180-day rule questions)