State v. Haas, 8586
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 69 S.D. 204,8 N.W.2d 569 |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | 8586 |
| Parties | STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Respondent, v. CLIFFORD HAAS, aka Clifford Hayes, Appellant. |
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
Respondent,
v.
CLIFFORD HAAS,
aka Clifford Hayes,
Appellant.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from Circuit Court, Grant County, SD
Hon. Howard Babcock, Judge.
#8586—Motion denied
Eugene C. Mahoney, Hugh S. Gamble, Sioux Falls, SD
Attorneys for Appellant.
Leo A. Ternmey, Atty. Gen., Pierre, SD
Frank S. Tait, State’s Atty., of Milbank, SD
Attorneys for Respondent.
Opinion filed March 18, 1943
[69 SD 205]
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was charged with murder. In the due course of the proceedings had below in which defendant refused and did not have the aid of counsel, plea of guilty was entered and the death sentence imposed. On the day before the lapse of the period within which an appeal to this court is permitted voluntary counsel appeared in his behalf, perfected an appeal to this court and lodged a motion which seeks to have the cause remanded to the trial court for the purpose of presenting a motion praying that the judgment below be vacated and that the defendant be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty for
[69 SD 206]
the purpose of entering a different plea. The reason advanced to justify this extraordinary procedure is that the defendant, at the time of refusing the aid of counsel and at the time he entered his plea, was without sufficient power of mind and understanding to make an intelligent choice and decision.
We do not deem it necessary to review the showing made in support of the motion. Suffice it to say that as a result of that showing this court is left in doubt as to the competency of the defendant at the time in question to make the described important decision involving his life and liberty.
The motion does not, in our opinion, involve an issue of mere judicial discretion in ruling on a motion for a change of plea pursuant to SDC 34.3522. The point suggested is that the judgment below lacks validity for want of due process of law under the provisions of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and § 2, Article VI of the Constitution of South Dakota. See Patton v. United States, 281 US 276, 50 SCt 253, 74 LEd 854, 70 ALR 263; Powell v. Alabama, 287 US 45, 53 SCt 55, 77 LEd 158, 84 ALR 527; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 US 458, 58 SCt 1019, 82 LEd 1461; Betts v. Brady, 316 US 455, 62 SCt 1252, 86 LEd...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Miner v. Erickson, No. 19977.
...Court of South Dakota, even prior to Gideon v. Wainwright, has repeatedly recognized and enforced this right. State v. Haas, 69 S.L. 204, 8 N.W.2d 569, 570 (1943); State ex rel. Henning v. Jameson, 71 S.D. 144, 22 N.W.2d 731, 732 (1946); State ex rel. Parker v. Jameson, 75 S.D. 196, 61 N.W.......
-
United States v. Parish, No. 23345.
...366 (1960); State v. Caffey, Mo., 438 S.W. 2d 167, 172, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 114, 24 L.Ed.2d 102 (1969); State v. Haas, 69 S.D. 204, 8 N.W.2d 569, 570 19 This consideration underlies our own rule, fashioned in the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction, regarding prearrest......
-
State v. Wofford, No. 38171
...Minn. 518, 18 N.W.2d 315; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12, 40 N.W.2d 630. 5 State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337, 84 N.W.2d 616; State v. Haas, 69 S.D. 204, 8 N.W.2d 569; State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 95 N.W.2d 6. In the Moseng case we said (254 Minn. 272, 95 N.W.2d 13): 'The aforesaid constituti......
-
Mazakahomni v. State
...App., 167 P.2d 920; Ex parte Farmer, 123 W.Va. 304, 14 S.E.2d 910; Ex parte Kramer, 61 Nev. 174, 122 P.2d 862;State v. Haas, S.D., 8 N.W.2d 569;State v. Jameson, S.D., 22 N.W.2d 731;State ex rel. Baker v. Utecht, 221 Minn. 145, 21 N.W.2d 328. The provisions of the Sixth Amendment of the Uni......
-
United States ex rel. Miner v. Erickson, No. 19977.
...Court of South Dakota, even prior to Gideon v. Wainwright, has repeatedly recognized and enforced this right. State v. Haas, 69 S.L. 204, 8 N.W.2d 569, 570 (1943); State ex rel. Henning v. Jameson, 71 S.D. 144, 22 N.W.2d 731, 732 (1946); State ex rel. Parker v. Jameson, 75 S.D. 196, 61 N.W.......
-
United States v. Parish, No. 23345.
...366 (1960); State v. Caffey, Mo., 438 S.W. 2d 167, 172, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 114, 24 L.Ed.2d 102 (1969); State v. Haas, 69 S.D. 204, 8 N.W.2d 569, 570 19 This consideration underlies our own rule, fashioned in the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction, regarding prearrest......
-
State v. Wofford, No. 38171
...Minn. 518, 18 N.W.2d 315; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12, 40 N.W.2d 630. 5 State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337, 84 N.W.2d 616; State v. Haas, 69 S.D. 204, 8 N.W.2d 569; State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 95 N.W.2d 6. In the Moseng case we said (254 Minn. 272, 95 N.W.2d 13): 'The aforesaid constituti......
-
Mazakahomni v. State
...App., 167 P.2d 920; Ex parte Farmer, 123 W.Va. 304, 14 S.E.2d 910; Ex parte Kramer, 61 Nev. 174, 122 P.2d 862;State v. Haas, S.D., 8 N.W.2d 569;State v. Jameson, S.D., 22 N.W.2d 731;State ex rel. Baker v. Utecht, 221 Minn. 145, 21 N.W.2d 328. The provisions of the Sixth Amendment of the Uni......