State ex rel. Engebritson v. Circuit Court for Grant and Day Counties
Decision Date | 27 October 1943 |
Docket Number | 8677. |
Citation | 11 N.W.2d 659,69 S.D. 454 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. ENGEBRITSON v. CIRCUIT COURT FOR GRANT AND DAY COUNTIES. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
T. R. Johnson, of Sioux Falls, for plaintiff.
George T. Mickelson, Atty. Gen., E.D. Barron, Ass't.Atty.Gen and Frank S. Tait, of Milbank, for defendant.
The petitioner, Clarence Engebritson, was charged in the circuit court of Grant County with the crime of perjury. The information, omitting caption and formal parts is as follows:
To this information the defendant pleaded guilty and thereupon he was sentenced by the circuit court of Grant County to a term of ten years in the State Penitentiary. The present proceeding is an original proceeding in this court in certiorari wherein the petitioner asserts that the judgment and sentence of the court are void and seeks to have them set aside. The defendant is now serving a concededly valid sentence of three years in the penitentiary and would not, therefore, be entitled to release by habeas corpus even were it determined that the ten-year sentence, about which petitioner complains, is invalid. For this reason the court has felt that interests of justice require that it entertain jurisdiction of this original proceeding in certiorari and thereby consider petitioner's contention that the judgment and sentence of the court are void.
The proceeding being in certiorari, the scope of review of this court is, of course, limited. SDC 37.0401 provides: "A writ of certiorari may be granted by the Supreme and Circuit Courts, when inferior courts, officers, boards, or tribunals have exceeded their jurisdiction, and there is no writ of error or appeal nor, in the judgment of the court, any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy."
The extent of review upon certiorari is prescribed by SDC 37.0407 as follows: "The review upon this writ cannot be extended further than to determine whether the inferior court, tribunal, board, or officer, has regularly pursued the authority of such court, tribunal, board, or officer."
No contention is here raised that the circuit court in sentencing the defendant had failed to acquire jurisdiction of defendant's person nor is it contended that the court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter. Petitioner's contention in substance is that the circuit court of Grant County was without authority to render judgment under this information purporting to charge petitioner with the crime. In support of his position, petitioner contends that the information fails to state a public offense in that an essential element of the crime of perjury is the materiality of the false testimony and it is contended the information shows that the false testimony was not material to the question at issue in the trial where the false testimony was given.
The first question presented by petitioner's contention is the extent of this court's power in certiorari to review a judgment in a criminal case. It is clear that the court is without power to examine evidence for the purpose of determining whether it supports a conviction, at least without a showing of fraud, or willful and arbitrary disregard of undisputed and indisputable proof wherein credibility of witnesses is not involved. State ex rel. Grey v. Circuit Court of Minnehaha County, 58 S.D. 152, 235 N.W. 509. However, the fact is conceded in this record that the charge involved in the trial at which the perjured testimony is alleged to have been given was a charge of obtaining property by means of false pretenses by issuing a check without having funds in the bank upon which the check was drawn. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that we are privileged to consider the information upon which the perjury conviction is based in the light of this conceded fact.
While this proceeding is in certiorari, we believe the scope of our review is the same as the review in habeas corpus when it is sought in such proceeding to inquire into an imprisonment resulting from a judicial proceeding. The inquiry in habeas corpus under such conditions is limited, as our inquiry in certiorari is limited, to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the court which caused the imprisonment. SDC 37.5504. In habeas corpus it is generally held that the court may consider the information upon which the conviction is based, and determine whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Smith v. Jameson
... ... SMITH v. JAMESON, Warden. No. 8782.Supreme Court of South DakotaJune 26, 1945 [19 N.W.2d 506] ... Circuit Court of Pennington County, South Dakota, with ... robbery ... as a substitute for an appeal. State ex rel. Engebritson v ... Circuit Court, S.D., 11 N.W.2d 659, 150 A.L.R. 739; ... ...