State v. Anderson, 15756

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtMILLER
Citation417 N.W.2d 403
PartiesSTATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Alan L. ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 15756,15756
Decision Date06 January 1988

Page 403

417 N.W.2d 403
STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee,
Alan L. ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 15756.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Argued Nov. 18, 1987.
Decided Jan. 6, 1988.

Janine Kern, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee; Roger A. Tellinghuisen, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on the brief.

Michael Stonefield, Office of Public Defender, Pennington County, Rapid City, for defendant and appellant.

MILLER, Justice.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss the State's case against Alan L. Anderson (Anderson) on the basis of an alleged violation of our 180-day rule (SDCL 23A-44-5.1). * We affirm.


A complaint was filed on May 12, 1986, charging Anderson with six counts of uttering a no-account check. Anderson appeared in magistrate court on May 19, 1986. At that time he was given a court-appointed attorney and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for May 28, 1986. Anderson later waived his right to a preliminary hearing as he wished to engage in plea negotiations with the state's attorney's office. Apparently, no-account check charges were pending against Anderson in several other counties. On June 17, 1986, Anderson appeared in circuit court before Judge Grosshans for arraignment on the six-count information. A not guilty plea was entered and the jury trial was scheduled for July 23, 1986.

Prior to the trial date, both Anderson's counsel and counsel for the State contacted the judge to obtain a continuance of the trial date in order to allow them to continue plea negotiations. The court granted the parties' request for a continuance and scheduled a status hearing for September 24, 1986.

Anderson failed to appear at the status hearing and a warrant for his arrest was issued. However, it was later discovered that Anderson had in fact appeared at the courthouse, but had been directed to the wrong courtroom. The warrant was then withdrawn. In the meantime, Anderson appeared before a Lawrence County Circuit Court Judge on a separate charge and was sentenced to serve four years in the state penitentiary.

While Anderson was in the penitentiary, the parties continued to negotiate a plea bargain. Plea negotiations between the parties remained open during the final months of 1986.

On January 12, 1987, State filed an application for writ of habeas corpus before Judge Grosshans, seeking Anderson's presence before the court on January 15, 1987, for the purpose of having a motion hearing on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Smith, Docket No. 89414
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 23 d1 Setembro d1 1991
    ...658 (1991) (a guilty plea waives the defendant's right to challenge a conviction on statutory speedy trial grounds); State v. Anderson, 417 N.W.2d 403 (S.D., 1988) (noncompliance with a 180-day rule created by court rule was a nonjurisdictional defect and was waived by a guilty plea).3 The ......
  • Horne v. Crozier, 19536
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 4 d3 Junho d3 1997
    ...defects. Two Eagle v. Leapley, 522 N.W.2d 765, 768 (S.D.1994); State v. Crow, 504 N.W.2d 336, 338-39 (S.D.1993); State v. Anderson, 417 N.W.2d 403, 405 (S.D.1988); State v. Grosh, 387 N.W.2d 503, 506 (S.D.1986). "A plea is intelligent and voluntary when the accused has a full understanding ......
  • State v. Erickson, 18540
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 21 d3 Dezembro d3 1994
    ...other periods of delay which the court finds are for good cause shall also be excluded from the computation period. See State v. Anderson, 417 N.W.2d 403 (S.D.1988). Defendant Erickson was indicted January 22, 1993. This started the 180-day time period running. Trial commenced 250 days late......
  • People v. Smith, Docket No. 110110
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 1 d5 Junho d5 1990 way of a plea of guilty. Tollett and the Brady trilogy control here. Menna is inapplicable. [Emphasis added.] In State v. Anderson, 417 N.W.2d 403 (S.D.1988), the South Dakota Supreme Court addressed the defendant's argument that his statutory right to a speedy trial was not relinquished......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT