dissent">SABERS, Justice

(dissenting).

[¶ 14.] 1. HETZEL’S TRIAL WAS NOT SCHEDULED WITHIN 180 DAYS AFTER HIS FIRST APPEARANCE AS REQUIRED BY SDCL 23A-44-5.1.

[¶ 15.] The majority opinion claims that the 180-day period began on November 18, 1997, when Hetzel appeared for arraignment on the indictment. However, the trial court found that the 180-day period commenced on September 28, 1997, when he “appeared” before the county clerk of courts and was released on bond. I agree with the trial court. Therefore, I dissent.

[¶ 16.] On September 28, 1997, Hetzel was released from custody on bond and required to execute a waiver of his extradition rights. His release was subject to conditions, including that he remain in the First Judicial Circuit. As the trial court noted, Hetzel had charges “hanging over him” at that time. State claims that Het-zel did not “appear” before a judicial officer under SDCL 23A-44-5.1 on September 28 because he was not physically brought before the magistrate who released him on bond. Although Hetzel did not physically appear before the magistrate on September 28, he did appear before a judicial officer for the purposes of SDCL 23A-44-5.1 and the 180-day period commenced to run. State v. Cooper, 421 67, 69 (SD 1988) (computing 180-day period from date defendant arrested and magistrate set bond).

[¶ 17.] SDCL 23A-4-1 requires that “[a] law enforcement officer shall, without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before the nearest available committing magistrate.” SDCL 23A-4-1 further provides:

If a person arrested without a warrant is brought before a committing magistrate, a complaint shall be filed forthwith. When a person, arrested with or without a warrant or given a summons, appears initially before a committing magistrate, the committing magistrate shall proceed in accordance with the ap*870plicable provisions of §§ 23A-4-2 to 23A-4-5, inclusive.

SDCL 23A-4^1 provides that the committing magistrate “admit the defendant to bail as provided by ... chapter 23A-43.” SDCL 23A-43-2 provides, in part:

Except for a defendant charged with an offense punishable by death or a defendant who is currently released on personal recognizance bond, a defendant shall, at his appearance before a committing magistrate or court be ordered released pending trial on his personal recognizance or upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the committing magistrate or court[.]

(Emphasis added). The State selected how Hetzel was to appear and evidently felt a physical appearance was not necessary in order to set his bail. In practice, many defendants are released on bond without physically appearing before a magistrate or judge.

[¶ 18.] Hetzel was arrested on three uniform traffic tickets. Printed on the top of all three tickets is the word “complaint.” Each ticket states the offense or violation for which Hetzel was arrested. Using the information in the “complaint” (uniform traffic tickets), the magistrate determined Hetzel’s bond and the conditions of his release. “[W]e have consistently computed [the 180-day period] from the date the defendant makes his very first court appearance on a charging document, regardless of the form that document takes.” State v. Kordonowy, 523 N.W.2d 556, 557 (S.D.1994). Hetzel made a constructive appearance before a judicial officer for purposes of the 180-day rule when he was released on bond and subjected to substantial conditions. Therefore, 180-day period began on September 28, 1997 and expired on March 27,1998.

[¶ 19.] The 180-day rule was adopted to prevent delays, procrastinations, and dilatory practices. State v. Hoffman, 409 N.W.2d 373, 376 (S.D.1987) (Wuest, CJ, concurring specially). It would circumvent the purpose of the 180-day rule to treat defendants such as Hetzel differently than those defendants released on bond who physically appear before a magistrate or judge. See Kordonowy, 523 N.W.2d at 557 (stating that a construction of 23A-44-5.1 which allows the State unlimited time to file an information after a defendant makes a first appearance on a complaint would “effectively defeat the purpose of the 180 day rule, and cannot be accepted”).

[¶ 20.] It would also circumvent the purpose of the 180-day rule to allow prosecutors to manipulate the commencement of the 180-day period by altering filed documents. The three tickets on which Hetzel was arrested are stamped filed September 30, 1997. The stamped date on two of the tickets is crossed out and the date November 17 is substituted in blue ink. See Attachment A. The initials of the clerk of courts appear under the handwritten dates. The third ticket is not altered. The bond agreement and waiver of extradition rights are also stamped filed September 30, 1997. The stamped dates on both are altered to November 17. See Attachments B and C. No explanation is offered in the record for these alterations. In addition, the State cannot, on its own motion, dismiss the proceedings and indict simply for the purposes of avoiding the sanctions of the 180-day rule and starting a new 180-day period. State v. Tiedeman, 433 N.W.2d 237, 240 (S.D.1988). Therefore, the State must establish a justifiable reason, constituting good cause, or the time will be counted. Here, the State failed to do so.

[¶ 21.] The majority opinion claims that the trial court based its decision to dismiss on when the prosecution “should” have filed a charging document. I disagree. The trial court dismissed because Hetzel made an appearance before a judicial officer for the purposes of the 180-day rule on September 28, 1997 and he was not brought to trial within 180 days of that date. Therefore, I dissent because Hetzel was not brought to trial within the time required by SDCL 23A-44-5.1.

*871[¶ 22.] 2. WHETHER THE 180-DAY RULE WAS TOLLED BYHET-ZEL’S MOTION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERYFILED ON NOVEMBER 18, 1997.

[¶ 23.] On November 18, 1997, Hetzel filed a motion and request for discovery. The State filed a reciprocal discovery motion on November 21 and indicated its compliance with Hetzel’s discovery request. The State now argues that Hetzel’s motion tolled the 180-day rule under SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(a). I disagree.

[¶ 24.] SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(a) provides:

(4) The following periods shall be excluded in computing the time for trial:

(a) The period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to an examination and hearing on competency and the period during which he is incompetent to stand trial; the time from filing until final disposition of pretrial motions of the defendant, including motions brought under § 23A-8-3; motions for a change of venue; and the time consumed in the trial of other charges against the defendant!]]

[¶ 25.] Hetzel’s motion and request for discovery was never noticed for hearing before the trial court. The State provided the materials requested by Hetzel and there was nothing for the trial court to resolve. There was no delay caused by Hetzel’s motion. Therefore, the 180-day rule was not tolled by Hetzel’s motion and request for discovery.

[¶ 26.] 3. WHETHER GOOD CAUSE EXISTED FOR THE DELAY.

[¶ 27.] State filed a motion asking the trial court to find good cause for the delay under SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(f).4 State did not ask for specific days to be excluded, but rather that “any period of time in excess of the 180 days should be excluded for good cause because the [trial court] invented a new rule at a time when it was impossible for the State to comply.” The trial court denied State’s motion finding that good cause for the delay was not established. I agree.

[¶ 28.] “The burden of showing good cause is on the prosecution.” Cooper, 421 N.W.2d at 71 (citing Hoffman, 409 N.W.2d at 375). The State was not surprised, as it claims, by the application of a new rule. It was simply disappointed by the enforcement of the old rule. The trial court found that the State’s confusion regarding when the 180-day period began running was a scheduling problem and did not constitute good cause for delay. This finding of fact is not clearly erroneous. Mere congestion of the court docket or scheduling errors do not establish good cause. See Kordonowy, 523 N.W.2d at 558. To hold otherwise would allow the State to take advantage of its own delay or mistakes.

[¶ 29.] Therefore, we should affirm the dismissal with prejudice for violation of SDCL 23A-44-5.1.

[¶ 30.] AMUNDSON, Justice, joins this dissent.

*872ATTACHMENT A

[[Image here]]

*873[[Image here]]

*874attachment b

[[Image here]]

*875[[Image here]]

*876ATTACHMENT C

[[Image here]]

. SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(f) provides:

Other periods of delay not specifically enumerated herein, but only if the court finds that they are for good cause. A motion for good cause need not be made within the one hundred eighty day period.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress