State v. Ruffing, 9838
Decision Date | 21 October 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 9838,9838 |
Citation | 105 N.W.2d 541,78 S.D. 556 |
Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph John RUFFING, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Dudley R. Herman, Gregory, for defendant and appellant.
Parnell J. Donohue, Atty. Gen., Charles Poches, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Joseph John Ruffing was charged with and tried for the crime of second degree rape in the Circuit Court of Gregory County. He was found guilty of the lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit rape upon which verdict he was sentenced to five years in the State Penitentiary. Sentence was imposed and judgment entered on December 18, 1958. Later the same day the State's Attorney filed a supplemental information alleging that defendant had previously been convicted of the following felonies: Escape, Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses, and Grand Larceny. Upon his plea of guilty defendant's sentence was increased to ten years and the previous five-year sentence vacated. He appeals.
Defendant's principal contention is that he was not fully and properly advised of his rights in the supplemental proceedings in which his sentence was enhanced.
Our habitual criminal statute does not create a new or separate offense. It merely authorizes enhanced penalties for habitual offenders in the discretion of the trial court. Proceedings thereunder are prescribed by Subsection 3 of SDC 13.0611 as follows:
At his trial defendant was represented by court-appointed counsel, William C. Grady. Such counsel, however, did not appear or represent defendant at the supplemental arraignment. The record of such arraignment shows the following proceedings:
'Mr. Donohue: May the record show that the defendant is being furnished with a copy of the Information.
(a copy of the Information is handed to defendant)
(the Information is read by State's Attorney)
'The Court: Mr. Ruffing, you have heard the Information under the habitual criminal act read to you and I presume you have a copy of it in your hand. Now do you have a lawyer representing you at this time?
'Mr. Ruffing: No.
'The Court: Do you want a little time to consult with a lawyer?
'Mr. Ruffing: Yes.
'The Court: Very well, we will be in recess for approximately 30 minutes and you can see what you want to do about this new charge.
(recess for approximately 30 minutes)
'The Court: Let the record show that after recess there appeared in Court the defendant, together with his counsel, Dudley Herman and the officers of this Court and thereupon the following proceedings were had:
The defendant may rise.
Mr. Ruffing, do you have a lawyer representing you at this time?
'Mr. Ruffing: Mr. Herman.
'The Court: I wonder, Mr. State's Attorney, if you wish to arraign the defendant at this time?
'Mr. Herman: I was here.
'The Court: Let the record show that the counsel, Dudley R. Herman was present at the reading of the Information and has waived any further reading of the information and states for the record he is now appearing for Joseph John Ruffing as counsel.
'The Court: Are you attorney for Mr. Ruffing in this matter, Mr. Herman?
'Mr. Herman: Yes, I am.
'The Court: Mr. Ruffing, are you ready at this time to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Bennett
...Kennedy v. State, 171 Neb. 160, 105 N.W.2d 710, 715 (1960); Gamron v. Jones, 148 Neb. 645, 28 N.W.2d 403 (1947); State v. Ruffing, 78 S.D. 556, 105 N.W.2d 541 (1960); and the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently recognized the principle that state recidivist statutes go only ......
-
State ex rel. Ruffing v. Jameson
...the five-year sentence was vacated and he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. On appeal, this court affirmed. State v. Ruffing, 78 S.D. 556, 105 N.W.2d 541. Some time thereafter, he applied to one of the judges of the second judicial circuit, wherein the penitentiary is situated, for a......
-
State v. Holiday
...upon one who is found to have the status of a habitual criminal. State v. DeMarsche, 68 S.D. 250, 1 N.W.2d 67 (1941); State v. Ruffing, 78 S.D. 556, 105 N.W.2d 541 (1960).... Whether or not an accused is a habitual offender has no relation to the trial for the charge against him, for the ha......
- Blackpipe State Bank v. Grass