State v. Langen
| Citation | 961 N.W.2d 585 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | #29135 |
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Justin Duane LANGEN, Defendant and Appellant. |
JASON R. RAVNSBORG, Attorney General, SARAH L. THORNE, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.
CHRISTOPHER MILES of Minnehaha County Public Defender's Office, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorney for defendant and appellant.
[¶1.] Justin Langen was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and several misdemeanor offenses. He appeals, arguing the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for a violation of the 180-day speedy trial rule. We affirm.
[¶2.] On June 10, 2018, Langen was arrested following a traffic stop in Minnehaha County. During the stop, he was uncooperative and provided law enforcement with false information. Law enforcement also found methamphetamine in his vehicle. In her report, the arresting officer noted that Aurora County had an outstanding warrant for Langen's arrest due to a probation violation.
[¶3.] The next day, the Minnehaha County State's Attorney's Office filed a seven-count complaint against Langen. An initial appearance was held on the same day.1 The court scheduled a preliminary hearing for July 24, 2018, and appointed a public defender (PD) from the Public Defender's Office (PDO) as Langen's attorney. The State recommended that Langen be released on a personal recognizance bond but requested a bond condition requiring Langen to appear for urinalysis (UA) at the Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office twice a week as part of the County's 24/7 program. Langen did not oppose the State's recommendation. However, he expressed concern that he would not be able to comply if he was detained on the Aurora County warrant.
[¶4.] The court responded by instructing Langen to "make sure ... when you get out [to Aurora County] ... [to] talk to the 24/7 folks either there or here, and get it set up to do the UAs, okay?" Langen agreed, and the court issued the personal recognizance bond with the 24/7 bond condition. The court also instructed Langen that the bond was "conditioned upon you staying in contact with your lawyer, ... [and] comply[ing] with the 24/7 program by providing two UAs a week ...." Langen was transported from the Minnehaha County Jail to the Davison County Jail two days later, where he was held pending resolution of the Aurora County probation violation.2 Because Langen was incarcerated on the Aurora County charge, he failed to appear for his first UA on June 15, 2018, in Minnehaha County.
[¶5.] On June 22, 2018, the Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office filed a 24/7 violation report with the circuit court, which stated that Langen "was released from jail [on] June 13, 2018[,] ... has not tested elsewhere in the state[,] and court records do not indicate any changes have been made." Later that day, Sergeant Kurt Schaunaman prepared an affidavit requesting an arrest warrant based on the bond violation. The court issued a no bond warrant for Langen's arrest.
[¶6.] On July 19, 2018, a hearing was held in Aurora County on Langen's probation violation, in which Langen admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The Aurora County court revoked Langen's suspended execution of sentence and imposed a four-year penitentiary sentence. Shortly thereafter, he was transported to the South Dakota State Penitentiary to begin serving his Aurora County sentence. Langen and his PD did not inform Minnehaha County about his status either before or after the Aurora County hearing and sentencing decision.
[¶7.] The same day, a Minnehaha County grand jury indicted Langen for the seven offenses listed in the complaint. The State also filed a part II information, alleging that Langen was a habitual offender. An arraignment date was not scheduled at that time, but the bench warrant for Langen's failure to appear for his UAs remained outstanding.3
[¶8.] On October 29, 2018, Sergeant Schaunaman filed a letter with the circuit court that requested cancellation of the Minnehaha County warrant. In the letter, Sergeant Schaunaman stated that Langen did not appear for his UAs "due to being in custody in another jurisdiction." The record does not show how Minnehaha County learned that Langen was incarcerated. The court cancelled the warrant the following day.
[¶9.] On December 6, 2018, 179 days after his initial appearance, Langen signed a notarized letter that requested the court honor his "ri[ght] for due process" by granting him a prompt hearing on the pending Minnehaha County charges. The letter also asked the court to cancel Langen's Minnehaha County warrant, indicating that Langen knew about his outstanding warrant before it was cancelled in October. In addition, Langen claimed that he had complied with the conditions of his bond by maintaining contact with his PD, although Langen complained his PD never responded to his communications. The Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office transported Langen from the state penitentiary to Minnehaha County for arraignment two weeks later.4
[¶10.] At the time of the arraignment, Langen's PD was no longer employed by the PDO. Langen completed an application for court-appointed counsel and was assigned another attorney from the PDO at the arraignment hearing. The court also issued a scheduling order and set trial for April 1, 2019, to which Langen did not object. Beginning on March 7, 2019, Langen brought the first of six motions that pushed the trial back until August 22, 2019.
[¶11.] On June 27, 2019, Langen submitted another letter that was filed with the Minnehaha County Clerk of Courts, in which Langen reasserted that his former PD failed to communicate with him and advanced the same complaint against his current counsel. In the letter, Langen also asked the court to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that his 6th Amendment speedy trial rights had been violated. On August 2, 2019, Langen's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice due to a violation of the 180-day speedy trial rule, asserting that more than 180 days had lapsed between Langen's initial appearance on June 11, 2018, and March 7, 2019, when Langen brought the first of several motions to continue the trial. The parties agree that these motions tolled the 180-day timeframe.
[¶12.] The court held a hearing to address Langen's complaints about his counsel on August 7, 2019. Langen asserted that he maintained contact with his former PD after he was transported to Aurora County "about my situation with ... sentencing" but heard nothing back. He claimed that he made several attempts to contact his PD, including leaving messages, until October 2019 when his girlfriend learned that Langen's former PD was no longer employed by the PDO and the PDO had closed its file on Langen. Langen also claimed his new court-appointed attorney had failed to maintain contact with him. The circuit court found Langen did not establish good cause for the appointment of new counsel.
[¶13.] On August 14, 2019, the circuit court held a hearing on Langen's motion to dismiss for a violation of the 180-day speedy trial rule. Langen argued that because he was in custody from July 19, 2018 to October 29, 2018, he was not unavailable under SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(d), and the delay from this period was attributable to the State. The State responded that Langen was unavailable during this time, and good cause existed for this delay because Langen had an outstanding warrant. The State further argued the lapse of communication between Langen and his PD may have partially accounted for the delay and that any delay caused by these communication problems was not attributable to the State.
[¶14.] The court took the matter under advisement and issued oral findings of fact and conclusions of law the next day. Among other periods, the court excluded the period in which the Minnehaha County warrant was outstanding and denied the motion. It held this delay was caused by Langen's absence or unavailability. Alternatively, the court held there was good cause to exclude this period because of the outstanding warrant.
[¶15.] To preserve his right to appeal the circuit court's speedy trial ruling, Langen waived his right to a jury trial and requested a court trial. A stipulated bench trial took place on August 22, 2019, in which Langen agreed to the admission of the State's exhibits and evidence. The court found Langen guilty of the charges, including the felony possession of a controlled substance, and determined that Langen was a habitual offender as alleged in the part II information. The court imposed a three-year suspended penitentiary sentence on the conviction for possession of a controlled substance and imposed suspended jail sentences on the misdemeanor convictions.
[¶16.] Langen appeals and raises a single issue for our review: whether the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for a violation of the 180-day rule.
[¶17.] We review de novo "whether the 180[-]day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay ...." State v. Andrews , 2009 S.D. 41, ¶ 6 n.1, 767 N.W.2d 181, 183 n.1. "A circuit court's findings of fact on the issue of the 180-day rule are reviewed using the clearly erroneous rule." State v. Seaboy , 2007 S.D. 24, ¶ 6, 729 N.W.2d 370, 372.
[¶18.] The "180-day rule" is a rule of procedure that is designed to move cases expeditiously through the court system. It requires that a defendant is brought to trial within 180 days from the defendant's first appearance before any "judicial officer on an indictment, information or complaint." Andrews , 2009 S.D. 41, ¶ 7, 767 N.W.2d at 183 (quoting SDCL 23A-44-5.1(2) ). A violation of the "rule is not synonymous with [a] violation of a constitutional right to a speedy...
To continue reading
Request your trial