NOTE: The 2nd and 3rd case
present similar scenarios. In both of
these cases, Justice Kern dissented, asserting that a summary affirmance
in a direct appeal may not, in most situations, serve as the basis for issue
preclusion in a subsequent habeas action premised upon ineffective
assistance of counsel. Also note:
Justice Myren did not participate in these decisions.
The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) UM coverage denied victims of motorcycle accident;
2) Habeas relief denied in 4-1 ruling, relying upon summary
affirmance in inmate’s direct appeal;
3) Habeas relief denied in 4-1 ruling, relying upon summary
affirmance in inmate’s direct appeal.
Summaries follows:
PAYNE v. STATE FARM, 2022 S.D. 3: This dispute involves the issue UM insurance
coverage intermingled with a choice of law analysis. The opening paragraph of the Opinion explains:
[¶1.] John
and Robin Payne (the Paynes) were denied uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under
their State Farm personal liability umbrella insurance policy following a
motorcycle accident with an uninsured vehicle in South Dakota. State Farm
denied coverage for the accident because the policy, first executed in
Virginia, did not include UM coverage. The Paynes, residents of Florida at the
time of the accident, filed a declaratory action against State Farm seeking
payment of $2,000,000 under Florida’s UM statute, which they contend applies to
this dispute. State Farm moved for summary judgment claiming Virginia, rather
than Florida, law applied. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding
Florida law applied to the dispute. The Paynes moved for declaratory relief
which the court denied, holding that Florida law only required the insurer of a
personal liability umbrella policy to offer UM coverage when the insured
applied for the policy or made a written request to their insurer for UM
coverage, conditions not met by the Paynes. The Paynes appeal.
The trial court’s analysis resulted in a denial of UM coverage
to the Paynes. The SD Supreme Court
affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice
Kern.
NEELS v. DOOLEY, 2022 S.D. 4:
This is a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding challenging
convictions on multiple counts. The
grounds are premised upon alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court (habeas court) denied relief
because the inmate’s direct appeal presented the same issues which underly the
ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a 4-1 ruling. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice
DeVaney. NOTE: Former CJ Gilbertson, not Justice Myren,
participated in this decision which was submitted to the Court on August 20,
2020.
Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinion, stating that the
language of the summary affirmance in the direct appeal did not actually
address one of the inmate’s habeas grounds and that, “issue preclusion may only foreclose relitigation of matters
that have already been ‘litigated and decided.’” Justice Kern further states:
[¶32.] The
writ of habeas corpus is the last line of defense within our state judicial
system against deprivations of basic constitutional rights in criminal matters.
When, on direct appeal, this Court declines to specifically address a
defendant’s claims in a written opinion, or in a summary order, it creates
uncertainty as to the preclusive effect of the direct appeal on a subsequent
habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. For this reason,
res judicata should be applied to habeas corpus petitions in only the clearest
of circumstances by this Court—not based on a summary conclusion in an order of
affirmance.
HARRIS v. FLUKE, 2022 S.D. 5: This is a post-conviction habeas
corpus proceeding challenging inmate’s conviction of 3rd degree
rape. The grounds are premised upon
alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
The trial court (habeas court) denied relief because the inmate’s direct
appeal presented the same issues which underly the ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. The SD Supreme Court
affirmed in a 4-1 ruling. The Court’s
opinion is authored by Justice DeVaney.
NOTE: Former CJ Gilbertson, not
Justice Myren, participated in this decision which was submitted to the Court
on August 20, 2020.
Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinion, stating that the
language of the summary affirmance in the direct appeal did not actually
address one of the inmate’s habeas grounds, stating:
[¶19.] As
in Neels v. Dooley, the majority opinion infers from the summary
affirmance language quoted above that this Court found “either no error or no
prejudice” from the alleged improper vouching on direct appeal. 2022 S.D. 4, ¶
24, __ N.W.2d at ___. However, the summary affirmance language here and the
majority opinion’s inference therefrom does not satisfy the applicable res
judicata requirement that a matter must have been already litigated and decided
to foreclose litigation of that matter.
Here, the summary affirmance language lacks a decision from this Court
on the issue of prejudice arising from alleged improper vouching. Therefore,
this issue is not properly precluded under the doctrine of res judicata.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
