Monette v. Weber

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that Mitchell Monette's no contest plea was unconstitutional because the sentencing court failed to inquire into the plea's voluntariness and did not establish an effective waiver of his constitutional rights on the record. The court reversed the habeas court's ruling, directed that the plea be voided, and remanded for further proceedings. It rejected Monette's ineffective-assistance and court-appointed-firearms-expert claims.

Holdings

1. A plea record that is silent as to whether the plea was voluntary and whether the defendant expressly waived the constitutional rights against self-incrimination, to trial by jury, and to confront witnesses is constitutionally insufficient under Boykin. The prior advisement of rights and written documents not presented to or relied upon by the sentencing court did not cure the omission at the change-of-plea hearing.
2. Monette's ineffective-assistance claim was without merit.
3. Monette's claim that denial of a court-appointed firearms expert violated due process was without merit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the habeas court erred in finding that Monette's no contest plea was constitutional, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
2. Whether Monette received effective assistance of counsel.
3. Whether denial of a court-appointed firearms expert violated Monette's due process rights.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded