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. Johnsen

Supreme Court of South Dakota

September 26, 2018

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
SHANE EDWARD JOHNSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

          CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS ON AUGUST 27, 2018

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HAND COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA THE HONORABLE JON R. ERICKSON Retired Judge

          MARTY J. JACKLEY Attorney General QUINCY R. KJERSTAD Assistant Attorney General Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

          CASEY N. BRIDGMAN Attorney for defendant Wessington Springs, South Dakota and appellant.

          ZINTER, JUSTICE

         [¶1.] A truck driver appeals his conviction of operating an overweight truck on a bridge. The circuit court rejected his argument that the truck was not subject to the weight limit posted for the bridge, denied his request for a jury trial, and denied his motion to dismiss under the 180-day rule. We affirm.

         Facts and Procedural History

         [¶2.] The facts of this case are not in dispute. On October 1, 2016, Shane Johnsen was hauling soybeans in a grain truck owned by his brother and employer. Johnsen was driving the truck from a field where the soybeans were being harvested to a grain elevator less than 50 miles away. Johnsen drove the truck over a bridge with statutorily authorized signage limiting the weight on the bridge to 33 tons or 66, 000 pounds.

         [¶3.] A highway patrolman observed Johnsen cross the bridge and initiated a traffic stop to check the truck's weight. It weighed 87, 000 pounds, which exceeded the posted limit for the bridge by 21, 000 pounds. The overweight offense subjected Johnsen to a criminal fine (Class 2 misdemeanor) and a civil penalty (75 cents per pound overweight). See SDCL 32-22-48; SDCL 32-22-55. The patrolman issued Johnsen a ticket, released him, and notified him to appear in court on November 22, 2016.

         [¶4.] The November 22 hearing was canceled, and after multiple continuances, Johnsen made his first court appearance at a motions hearing on July 10, 2017. Johnsen moved to dismiss, contending his truck was not subject to the posted weight limit for the bridge. He relied on a statute that affords a 10% overweight tolerance or exemption for vehicles "hauling agricultural products from a harvesting combine to the point of first unloading[.]" See SDCL 32-22-42.2. Johnsen also requested a jury trial. The circuit court denied both motions. In denying the motion for a jury trial, the court assured Johnsen that a jail sentence would not be imposed.

         [¶5.] On August 8, 2017, Johnsen moved to dismiss the case again, claiming he was not brought to trial within 180 days from the date he received the ticket- October 1, 2016. See SDCL 23A-44-5.1 (authorizing dismissal of cases not brought to trial within 180 days of a defendant's first appearance before a judicial officer). The circuit court denied the motion, ruling that Johnsen's first appearance before a judicial officer occurred at the July 10 hearing, just over a month before the scheduled August 15 trial date.

         [¶6.] Following the scheduled trial, the court found Johnsen guilty of violating SDCL 32-22-48, and it imposed a $170 fine and a $15, 750 civil penalty. Johnsen appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in concluding that the harvesting exemption in SDCL 32-22-42.2 did not apply. Johnsen also contends the court erred in denying his request for a jury trial and his motion to dismiss under the 180-day rule.

         Decision

         [¶7.] Johnsen first argues the circuit court erred in finding him guilty of violating SDCL 32-22-48. He contends that vehicles qualifying for the harvesting exemption in SDCL 32-22-42.2 are not required to comply with the posted weight limits for bridges.[1] His argument is not based on the language of the statute under which he was convicted (SDCL 32-22-48). Instead, his argument is premised on the Legislature's failure to include language in SDCL 32-22-42.2 specifically indicating that the harvesting exemption does not apply to bridges. By comparison, Johnsen observes that a different exemption statute-SDCL 32-22-16.3-specifically requires compliance with posted weight limits ...


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.