State v. Reinke

298 N.W.2d 816, 1980 S.D. LEXIS 450
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 26, 1980
Docket13006
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 298 N.W.2d 816 (State v. Reinke) 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. Reinke, 298 N.W.2d 816, 1980 S.D. LEXIS 450 (S.D. 1980).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an amended order suspending imposition of sentence. We affirm.

Appellant pleaded guilty to third-degree burglary. The trial court accepted a plea bargain agreement and suspended imposition of sentence. In addition to placing appellant on probation for four years, the trial court imposed a $500 fine.

Appellant argues that in the absence of specific statutory authority, an order suspending imposition of sentence cannot require the payment of a fine as a condition of probation. See State v. Marshall, 247 N.W.2d 484 (S.D.1976), SDCL 23A-27-13. We do not reach this issue.

Appellant concedes that he knowingly accepted the payment of the fine as a condition of probation. He made no objection to the trial court. Consequently, he may not raise his objection to the condition of probation for the first time on appeal. State v. Iverson, 269 N.W.2d 390 (S.D.1978). See State v. Jackson, 272 N.W.2d 102 (S.D.1978).

The amended order suspending the imposition of sentence is affirmed.

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

Related

Turo v. Solem
427 N.W.2d 843 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
298 N.W.2d 816, 1980 S.D. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-reinke-sd-1980.