The South Dakota Supreme Court rules against a man who appealed the decision to allow him to represent himself in court.
Ultimately, this upholds his sentence for failure to comply with his court-mandated reporting.
While relevant to the trial, ultimately Sammy Shepley’s 1988 conviction was not at the heart of the State V. Shepley case before the Supreme Court. Instead, it orbits a failure on Shepley’s part to live within his mandated sex offender regulations.
After failing to provide notice of a new residence, which was located inside a safe zone, Shepley was arrested and charged as a habitual offender. Following trial, he was sentenced to a suspended five-year penitentiary sentence with two years of probation.
Following a breakdown of attorney-client relationship during that trial process, Shepley elected to represent himself in the courtroom. While not unheard of, pro se representation is a risky legal strategy for defendants without legal knowledge.
The crux of the case was Shepley’s allegation the court failed to advise him of the risk of pro se representation.
However, records show conversations between Shepley and the court that show the presiding judge laying out the value of attorney representation, such as building arguments, strategies, and ensuring the rights of defendants are being followed by the court.
Shepley proceeded to acknowledge this and responded “yes” when asked by the judge if he was correct in waiving his right to an attorney. Circuit courts also found Shepley to have “freely and intelligently waived his rights.”
Ultimately, in their opposition to the Shepley argument, the Supreme Court writes “a warning is not constitutionally necessary where other circumstances indicate the defendant was aware of the dangers of self-representation.”