791 N.W.2d 641
S.D.2010Background
- Rondell was arrested for DUI third offense, driving with a revoked license, open container possession, and underage consumption.
- Rondell moved to suppress the evidence from the night of his arrest, and the trial court denied the motion.
- After denial, Rondell entered a conditional guilty plea to DUI third offense; the State dismissed some misdemeanor charges and the plea preserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- At the plea hearing, the court explained the plea as a conditional/Alford-type plea, aimed at allowing appellate review of the suppression ruling.
- South Dakota law provides no conditional plea mechanism; SDCL 23A-7-2 enumerates only standard pleas ( guilty, not guilty, etc.).
- The Supreme Court held there was no statutory or court-rule authority for a conditional plea, rendering Rondell’s conditional plea void and the jurisdiction to accept it lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to accept a conditional plea | State: conditional plea lacks statutory basis and jurisdiction. | Rondell: a conditional plea is permissible to preserve appeal rights. | No authority; conditional plea void. |
| Whether the conditional plea preserved Rondell's right to appeal the suppression ruling | State: conditional plea would preserve appeal rights. | Rondell: plea preserves right to appeal | Preservation not valid because plea void. |
| Whether invited error tainted the appeal | State: invited error by party’s agreement to condition. | Rondell: not applicable since agreement lacked legal basis. | Invited error doctrine applied; not applicable to validate conditional plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. Supreme Court 1970) (recognizes acceptability of a guilty plea despite innocence)
- State v. Engelmann, 541 N.W.2d 96 (S.D. 1995) (Alford-like reasoning adopted in SD for plea considerations)
- State v. Keohane, 814 A.2d 327 (R.I. 2003) (courts lack authority to accept conditional pleas preserving appeal rights)
- Veith v. O’Brien, 739 N.W.2d 15 (S.D. 2007) (invited error doctrine relevance to appellate issues)
- State v. Olson, 334 N.W.2d 49 (S.D. 1983) (jurisdiction to entertain appeals is statute-based)