844 N.W.2d 626
S.D.2014Background
- Smith was charged in 2012 with DUI-related offenses and obstruction; a 2012 Part II Information alleged two prior DUI convictions.
- The 2008 prior conviction involved guilty plea with suspended imposition of sentence after information filed at arraignment.
- The 2009 prior conviction involved guilty plea with jail time and suspended sentence; information filed on the same day as arraignment.
- Smith moved to dismiss the 2012 Part II Information, arguing the prior convictions were void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to filing procedural defects.
- Circuit court found no jurisdictional flaw, holding the prior convictions valid for enhancement and Smith ultimately sentenced after denying a suspended imposition of sentence; Smith appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did lack of judge’s note of filing date deprive jurisdiction? | Smith contends SDCL 15-6-5(e) flaw voids jurisdiction. | State argues no jurisdictional error; failure to note date does not invalidate filings. | No jurisdictional error; predicate convictions valid for§2 |
| Does 2010 amendment SDCL 23A-27-13 violate ex post facto? | Smith claims retroactive penalty increase violates ex post facto. | Amendment prospective, not retroactive; applies to later conviction. | Amendment not ex post facto; constitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Arguello, 519 N.W.2d 326 (S.D. 1994) (information sufficiency; filing date not jurisdictional error)
- State v. Heftel, 513 N.W.2d 397 (S.D. 1994) (failure to note filing date not jurisdictional error (SDCL 15-6-5(e)))
- State v. Graycek, 368 N.W.2d 815 (S.D. 1985) (service-related or procedural issues distinguished from jurisdictional defect)
- State v. Koch, 818 N.W.2d 793 (S.D. 2012) (de novo review of jurisdictional questions)
- Nilson, 364 N.W.2d 532 (S.D. 1985) (look-back/punishment for current offense; not retroactive)