Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Logan v. Solemgreen2 sentences2013Nor is there a “requirement that the record show an express enumeration by the court nor an express waiver by the defendant . . . as a condition precedent to a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.” Id. (citing Quist v. Leapley, 486 N.W.2d 265, 267 (S.D. 1992)); Logan v. Solem, 406 N.W.2d 714, 717 (S.D. 1987) (“Boykin is devoid of any language stating that valid waiver requires the defendant be specifically told each of those rights he is waiving and then expressly waive each right for the record.”). 2013Nor is there a “requirement that the record show an express enumeration by the court nor an express waiver by the defendant ... as a condition precedent to a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.” Id. (citing Quist v. Leapley, 486 N.W.2d 265, 267 (S.D.1992)); Logan v. Solem, 406 N.W.2d 714, 717 (S.D.1987) (“Boykin is devoid of any language stating that valid waiver requires the defendant be specifically told each of those rights he is waiving and then expressly waive each right for the record”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Moellergreen2 sentences2013Nor is there a “requirement that the record show an express enumeration by the court nor an express waiver by the defendant . . . as a condition precedent to a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.” Id. (citing Quist v. Leapley, 486 N.W.2d 265, 267 (S.D. 1992)); Logan v. Solem, 406 N.W.2d 714, 717 (S.D. 1987) (“Boykin is devoid of any language stating that valid waiver requires the defendant be specifically told each of those rights he is waiving and then expressly waive each right for the record.”). 2013Nor is there a “requirement that the record show an express enumeration by the court nor an express waiver by the defendant ... as a condition precedent to a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.” Id. (citing Quist v. Leapley, 486 N.W.2d 265, 267 (S.D.1992)); Logan v. Solem, 406 N.W.2d 714, 717 (S.D.1987) (“Boykin is devoid of any language stating that valid waiver requires the defendant be specifically told each of those rights he is waiving and then expressly waive each right for the record”). | 1 | 2 |
Quist v. Leapleygreen2 sentences2013Nor is there a “requirement that the record show an express enumeration by the court nor an express waiver by the defendant . . . as a condition precedent to a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.” Id. (citing Quist v. Leapley, 486 N.W.2d 265, 267 (S.D. 1992)); Logan v. Solem, 406 N.W.2d 714, 717 (S.D. 1987) (“Boykin is devoid of any language stating that valid waiver requires the defendant be specifically told each of those rights he is waiving and then expressly waive each right for the record.”). 2013Nor is there a “requirement that the record show an express enumeration by the court nor an express waiver by the defendant ... as a condition precedent to a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.” Id. (citing Quist v. Leapley, 486 N.W.2d 265, 267 (S.D.1992)); Logan v. Solem, 406 N.W.2d 714, 717 (S.D.1987) (“Boykin is devoid of any language stating that valid waiver requires the defendant be specifically told each of those rights he is waiving and then expressly waive each right for the record”). | 1 | 1 |
Monette v. Webergreen2 sentences2013Instead, “ ‘the record in some manner must show the defendant entered his plea understandingly and voluntarily.’ ” Monette, 2009 S.D. 77, ¶ 11 , 771 N.W.2d at 925 (emphasis in original) (quoting Quist, 486 N.W.2d at 267 ). 2013Instead, “ ‘the record in some manner must show the defendant entered his plea understandingly and voluntarily.’ ” Monette, 2009 S.D. 77, ¶ 11 , 771 N.W.2d at 925 (emphasis in original) (quoting Quist, 486 N.W.2d at 267 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnergreen2 sentences1973See, e. g., State v. Turner, 186 Neb. 424 , 183 N.W.2d 763 ; Edwards v. State, 51 Wis.2d 231 , 186 N.W.2d 193 ; Wade v. Coiner, 4 Cir., 468 F.2d 1059 ; United States v. Frontero, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 ; United States v. Sherman, 9 Cir., 474 F.2d 303 ; Stinson v. Turner, 10 Cir., 473 F.2d 913 . 2 We find this latter interpretation of Boykin to be persuasive. 1973See, e. g., State v. Turner, 186 Neb. 424 , 183 N.W.2d 763 ; Edwards v. State, 51 Wis.2d 231 , 186 N.W.2d 193 ; Wade v. Coiner, 4 Cir., 468 F.2d 1059 ; United States v. Frontero, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 ; United States v. Sherman, 9 Cir., 474 F.2d 303 ; Stinson v. Turner, 10 Cir., 473 F.2d 913 . 2 We find this latter interpretation of Boykin to be persuasive. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Merrill v. State
green
2 sentences1974As stated in United States v. Frontero, 1971, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 at 415: “This Court is, however, aware of no precedent, from the Supreme Court or elsewhere, for the proposition that due process requires that a defendant be informed of each and every right which is waived by a guilty plea or that the waiver of these rights is a ‘consequence’ * * * of which a defendant must be personally informed before a guilty plea may be accepted.” This court has also said in Merrill v. State, 1973, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 : “There is, however, a growing body of authority for the proposition that Boyk 1974As stated in United States v. Frontero, 1971, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 at 415: “This Court is, however, aware of no precedent, from the Supreme Court or elsewhere, for the proposition that due process requires that a defendant be informed of each and every right which is waived by a guilty plea or that the waiver of these rights is a ‘consequence’ * * * of which a defendant must be personally informed before a guilty plea may be accepted.” This court has also said in Merrill v. State, 1973, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 : “There is, however, a growing body of authority for the proposition that Boyk | 3 | 1974–1987 |
United States v. Richard J. Frontero
green
2 sentences1974As stated in United States v. Frontero, 1971, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 at 415: “This Court is, however, aware of no precedent, from the Supreme Court or elsewhere, for the proposition that due process requires that a defendant be informed of each and every right which is waived by a guilty plea or that the waiver of these rights is a ‘consequence’ * * * of which a defendant must be personally informed before a guilty plea may be accepted.” This court has also said in Merrill v. State, 1973, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 : “There is, however, a growing body of authority for the proposition that Boyk 1973See, e. g., State v. Turner, 186 Neb. 424 , 183 N.W.2d 763 ; Edwards v. State, 51 Wis.2d 231 , 186 N.W.2d 193 ; Wade v. Coiner, 4 Cir., 468 F.2d 1059 ; United States v. Frontero, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 ; United States v. Sherman, 9 Cir., 474 F.2d 303 ; Stinson v. Turner, 10 Cir., 473 F.2d 913 . 2 We find this latter interpretation of Boykin to be persuasive. | 2 | 1973–1974 |
State v. Driver
green
2 sentences1987State v. Driver, 290 N.W.2d 856 (S.D.1980); Lodermeir v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163 (S.D.1978); Rust v. State, 88 S.D. 265 , 218 N.W.2d 482 (1974); Crew v. Nelson, 88 S.D. 162 , 216 N.W.2d 565 (1974); Merrill v. State, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 (1973). 1987State v. Driver, 290 N.W.2d 856 (S.D.1980); Lodermeir v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163 (S.D.1978); Rust v. State, 88 S.D. 265 , 218 N.W.2d 482 (1974); Crew v. Nelson, 88 S.D. 162 , 216 N.W.2d 565 (1974); Merrill v. State, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 (1973). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Lodermeier v. State
green
2 sentences1987State v. Driver, 290 N.W.2d 856 (S.D.1980); Lodermeir v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163 (S.D.1978); Rust v. State, 88 S.D. 265 , 218 N.W.2d 482 (1974); Crew v. Nelson, 88 S.D. 162 , 216 N.W.2d 565 (1974); Merrill v. State, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 (1973). 1987State v. Driver, 290 N.W.2d 856 (S.D.1980); Lodermeir v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163 (S.D.1978); Rust v. State, 88 S.D. 265 , 218 N.W.2d 482 (1974); Crew v. Nelson, 88 S.D. 162 , 216 N.W.2d 565 (1974); Merrill v. State, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 (1973). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Rust v. State
neutral
2 sentences1987State v. Driver, 290 N.W.2d 856 (S.D.1980); Lodermeir v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163 (S.D.1978); Rust v. State, 88 S.D. 265 , 218 N.W.2d 482 (1974); Crew v. Nelson, 88 S.D. 162 , 216 N.W.2d 565 (1974); Merrill v. State, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 (1973). 1987State v. Driver, 290 N.W.2d 856 (S.D.1980); Lodermeir v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163 (S.D.1978); Rust v. State, 88 S.D. 265 , 218 N.W.2d 482 (1974); Crew v. Nelson, 88 S.D. 162 , 216 N.W.2d 565 (1974); Merrill v. State, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 (1973). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Crew v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1987State v. Driver, 290 N.W.2d 856 (S.D.1980); Lodermeir v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163 (S.D.1978); Rust v. State, 88 S.D. 265 , 218 N.W.2d 482 (1974); Crew v. Nelson, 88 S.D. 162 , 216 N.W.2d 565 (1974); Merrill v. State, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 (1973). 1987State v. Driver, 290 N.W.2d 856 (S.D.1980); Lodermeir v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163 (S.D.1978); Rust v. State, 88 S.D. 265 , 218 N.W.2d 482 (1974); Crew v. Nelson, 88 S.D. 162 , 216 N.W.2d 565 (1974); Merrill v. State, 87 S.D. 285 , 206 N.W.2d 828 (1973). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Harold Jimmy Wade v. Ira M. Coiner, Warden of the West Virginia State Penitentiary
green
1 sentence1973See, e. g., State v. Turner, 186 Neb. 424 , 183 N.W.2d 763 ; Edwards v. State, 51 Wis.2d 231 , 186 N.W.2d 193 ; Wade v. Coiner, 4 Cir., 468 F.2d 1059 ; United States v. Frontero, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 ; United States v. Sherman, 9 Cir., 474 F.2d 303 ; Stinson v. Turner, 10 Cir., 473 F.2d 913 . 2 We find this latter interpretation of Boykin to be persuasive. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
United States v. John William Sherman
green
1 sentence1973See, e. g., State v. Turner, 186 Neb. 424 , 183 N.W.2d 763 ; Edwards v. State, 51 Wis.2d 231 , 186 N.W.2d 193 ; Wade v. Coiner, 4 Cir., 468 F.2d 1059 ; United States v. Frontero, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 ; United States v. Sherman, 9 Cir., 474 F.2d 303 ; Stinson v. Turner, 10 Cir., 473 F.2d 913 . 2 We find this latter interpretation of Boykin to be persuasive. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Troy M. Stinson v. John W. Turner, Warden, Utah State Prison
green
1 sentence1973See, e. g., State v. Turner, 186 Neb. 424 , 183 N.W.2d 763 ; Edwards v. State, 51 Wis.2d 231 , 186 N.W.2d 193 ; Wade v. Coiner, 4 Cir., 468 F.2d 1059 ; United States v. Frontero, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 ; United States v. Sherman, 9 Cir., 474 F.2d 303 ; Stinson v. Turner, 10 Cir., 473 F.2d 913 . 2 We find this latter interpretation of Boykin to be persuasive. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Edwards v. State
green
2 sentences1973See, e. g., State v. Turner, 186 Neb. 424 , 183 N.W.2d 763 ; Edwards v. State, 51 Wis.2d 231 , 186 N.W.2d 193 ; Wade v. Coiner, 4 Cir., 468 F.2d 1059 ; United States v. Frontero, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 ; United States v. Sherman, 9 Cir., 474 F.2d 303 ; Stinson v. Turner, 10 Cir., 473 F.2d 913 . 2 We find this latter interpretation of Boykin to be persuasive. 1973See, e. g., State v. Turner, 186 Neb. 424 , 183 N.W.2d 763 ; Edwards v. State, 51 Wis.2d 231 , 186 N.W.2d 193 ; Wade v. Coiner, 4 Cir., 468 F.2d 1059 ; United States v. Frontero, 5 Cir., 452 F.2d 406 ; United States v. Sherman, 9 Cir., 474 F.2d 303 ; Stinson v. Turner, 10 Cir., 473 F.2d 913 . 2 We find this latter interpretation of Boykin to be persuasive. | 1 | 1973–1973 |