State v. Jordan

261 N.W.2d 126, 1978 S.D. LEXIS 279
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 5, 1978
Docket12062
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 261 N.W.2d 126 (State v. Jordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Jordan, 261 N.W.2d 126, 1978 S.D. LEXIS 279 (S.D. 1978).

Opinion

HECK, Circuit Judge.

The defendant, Rex Allen Jordan, was charged with two counts of first degree robbery. During the course of the proceedings, he moved to suppress certain evidence. After due hearing, the motion was denied. Later, after plea negotiations, the defendant entered pleas of guilty to both counts. At the arraignment, the defendant’s counsel stated that the defendant wished to reserve his right to appeal any of the rulings previously made by the court. The reservation of the right to appeal was not made a part of the plea agreement. The circuit judge advised the defendant that by entering his pleas of guilty he would waive his right to appeal the prior rulings of the court.

The question before this court is whether a defendant who has knowingly and intelligently entered a plea of guilty can reserve his right to appeal nonjurisdictional matters.

This court previously has said that a plea of guilty, “if voluntarily and understandably made, is conclusive as to the defendant’s guilt, admitting all the facts and waiving all nonjurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings * * *.” State ex rel. Condon v. Erickson, 85 S.D. 302, 307, 182 N.W.2d 304, 306-7.

There is no question that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty was entered by the defendant. By his plea of guilty he has admitted the facts establishing the essential elements of the crime with which he was charged. We conclude that he has waived his right to appeal nonjurisdictional defects.

Since the defendant is not entitled to appeal, the other objections raised need not be considered.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

HECK, Circuit Judge, sitting for ZAS-TROW, J., disqualified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Two Eagle v. Leapley
522 N.W.2d 765 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1994)
State v. Crow
504 N.W.2d 336 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1993)
State v. Cobb
479 N.W.2d 879 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1992)
State v. Kettle
452 N.W.2d 774 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1990)
State v. Schulz
409 N.W.2d 655 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1987)
State v. Cowley
408 N.W.2d 758 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1987)
State v. Grosh
387 N.W.2d 503 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1986)
State v. Janssen
371 N.W.2d 353 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1985)
State v. Morrison
337 N.W.2d 825 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Culton
273 N.W.2d 200 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1979)
State v. Losieau
266 N.W.2d 259 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 N.W.2d 126, 1978 S.D. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jordan-sd-1978.