The
SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding, inter alia:
- Denial of Counsel’s Request to Withdraw warrants
reversal;
Summary
follows:
STATE
v. ABRAHAM-MEDVED, 2024 S.D. 14: Following a guilty plea, defendant and her
court-appointed counsel appeared for a sentencing hearing. At the hearing, court-appointed counsel
requested permission to be removed from the case
because of “a serious breakdown
of communication between” him and [the client.]
Thereafter,
The circuit court did not
inquire of either [client] or [counsel] as to the nature of the breakdown in
communication. Rather, the court denied [counsel’s] request to withdraw,
explaining, “I think that since the matter is set for sentencing I’m not sure
what communication there is left to do.”
Defendant was sentenced to 5 years in prison, with
2 years suspended.
The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded,
holding that Defendant had been prejudiced by the breakdown in communications
and the trial court’s refusal to allow withdrawal of counsel. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion
authored by Justice DeVaney.
This
decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
