Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Kaufman

Supreme Court of South Dakota

March 16, 2016

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
COREY D. KAUFMAN, Defendant and Appellant

         Considered on Briefs January 11, 2016

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MEADE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. THE HONORABLE MICHELLE K. PALMER PERCY, Judge.

         MARTY J. JACKLEY, Attorney General, JARED C. TIDEMANN, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

         TIMOTHY J. BARNAUD, Spearfish, South Dakota, Attorney for defendant and appellant.

         WILBUR, Justice. GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and ZINTER, SEVERSON, and KERN, Justices, concur.

          OPINION

          WILBUR, Justice

          [¶1] Defendant pleaded guilty in South Dakota to driving under the influence and admitted to being a habitual offender. After entry of the judgment of conviction, the State of Nebraska suspended defendant's commercial driver's license. Defendant filed a motion in a South Dakota circuit court to reopen his case and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea under SDCL 23A-27-11. He claimed the loss of his commercial driver's license constituted a manifest injustice. The circuit court denied defendant's motion, and he appeals. The State asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider defendant's appeal. We agree and dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

         Background

          [¶2] On August 8, 2013, a law enforcement officer stopped Corey Kaufman for driving erratically. The officer smelled the odor of alcohol, and Kaufman admitted he had been drinking. He failed five of seven sobriety tests, and his blood alcohol

Page 591

content was .142. The officer arrested Kaufman. An information filed on August 9, 2013, charged Kaufman with driving under the influence in violation of SDCL 32-23-1(2), and, in the alternative, driving while having a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or more in violation of SDCL 32-23-1(1). A part II information alleged Kaufman to be a habitual offender in violation of SDCL 32-23-3.

          [¶3] At his initial appearance, on August 9, 2013, the magistrate court advised Kaufman of his rights. Kaufman intended to plead guilty. Prior to accepting Kaufman's plea, the court generally explained that a plea of guilty could impact one's driving privileges. The court did not specifically inform Kaufman that a guilty plea would impact his Nebraska commercial driver's license (CDL). Kaufman pleaded guilty to violating SDCL 32-23-1(1) and admitted to the part II information. On August 13, 2013, the court sentenced Kaufman and entered a judgment of conviction. Kaufman did not appeal.

          [¶4] On October 21, 2014, Kaufman moved the circuit court to reopen his case and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea under SDCL 23A-27-11. That statute provides that a court may allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea after sentence, but only to correct a manifest injustice. Id. Kaufman alleged that a manifest injustice occurred because the magistrate court failed to advise him that a guilty plea would result in the suspension of his Nebraska CDL for life with a possibility of reinstatement after ten years. He claimed he would not have pleaded guilty had he been aware of the consequence to his CDL. Kaufman asserted that his CDL was necessary to his " livelihood" and ability to provide for his child and ailing parents.

          [¶5] On April 7, 2015, the circuit court orally denied Kaufman's motion. It ruled that Kaufman did not present clear and convincing evidence that a manifest injustice occurred. The court also ruled that the loss of a CDL is a collateral consequence, of which the court had no duty to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.