Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brakeall v. Weber

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 2003No. NonePublished

1DissentSabers, Justice

[¶ 31.] I dissent on Issue 1 and would not reach Issues 2 through 4.

[¶ 32.] The failure of the trial court at sentencing to advise Brakeall of the minimum and maximum sentence prevents a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea and is reversible error.

[¶ 33.] The majority opinion provides mere lip service to the language cited with approval in State v. Richards, as follows: The failure to advise of the mandatory minimum sentence is more than a technical, harmless error and demonstrates a manifestation of injustice.

The trial court’s express statement on the record of an applicable mandatory…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. TimmreckSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Security Savings Bank v. MuellerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State v. SchumacherNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  4. State v. WilsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  5. State v. RichardsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API