Rosen v. Weber

Summary

The South Dakota Supreme Court held that Garry Rosen’s guilty plea was constitutionally invalid because the sentencing court did not advise him that pleading guilty would waive his Boykin rights, including the rights to a jury trial, compulsory process, and against self-incrimination, or determine whether he understood those waivers. The court rejected applying a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis in the absence of a Boykin canvassing. The judgment was reversed and remanded with directions to void the plea and conduct further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A guilty plea is constitutionally invalid when the record does not show that the defendant was advised that pleading guilty would waive the right to trial by jury, the right against compulsory self-incrimination, and the right to confront one's accusers.
2. The sentencing court must advise the defendant that the guilty plea waives the Boykin rights and must inquire whether the defendant understands those waivers.
3. When the record shows that no Boykin canvassing occurred, the reviewing court does not apply the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis to validate the plea.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rosen's guilty plea was constitutionally invalid because the sentencing court failed to advise him that the plea would waive his Boykin rights.
2. Whether the sentencing court was required to determine whether Rosen understood that pleading guilty would waive those rights.
3. Whether the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis could validate the plea despite the absence of a Boykin canvassing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded