Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Bilben

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 2014No. 26782Published

1DissentGilbertson, Chief Justice

[¶23.] I dissent. The procedure used by Bilben — a collateral attack on the validity of a predicate conviction used for enhancement purposes — is a judicial construct. Unlike direct appeal, it is not codified by our Legislature. See SDCL 23A-32-2 (codifying right to appeal from a final judgment of conviction). Unlike a petition for habeas corpus, it is neither a remedy “antecedent to statute” nor “an integral part of our common-law heritage.” Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473-74, 124 S.Ct. 2686, 2692, 159 L.Ed.2d 548 (2004). See also SDCL 21-27-1 (codifying habeas relief). Unlike direct appeal…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. McCleskey v. ZantSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Burgett v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. United States v. AddonizioSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Custis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API