# State Ex Rel. Henning v. Jameson

> South Dakota Supreme Court · May 6, 1946 · 71 S.D. 144

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3888432

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE Ex Rel. HENNING, Respondent, v. JAMESON, Warden, Appellant; STATE Ex Rel HENNING, Appellant, v. JAMESON, Warden, Respondent
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 6, 1946
- **Citations:** 71 S.D. 144; 22 N.W.2d 731; 1946 S.D. LEXIS 15
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rudolph
- **Judges:** Sickel, Roberts, Warren, Rudolph, Smith, Polley
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3888432

## Opinion text

RUDOLPH, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
As established by the case of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 , 58 S. Ct. 1019 , 82 L. Ed. 1461 , 146 A. L. R. 357, the burden of proof rested upon petitioner to establish that he did not competently and intelligently waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel.
The trial court found that the petitioner at the time of entering his pleas of guilty to the felonies with which he was charged was not advised by the court of his right to counsel, and other constitutional rights. The trial court further found:
“That said petitioner was born and reared in a foreign country and has had no previous experience with court procedure. That petitioner in said proceedings on said felony charges did not competently and intelligently waive his constitutional rights and that because of his lack of experience and the Court’s failure to avdise him of such rights, he was unable to protect his rights or to exercise his cons.ututional privileges. That petitioner did not have a lawyer to represent and defend him.”
This finding finds ample support in the evidence, and it follows, in my opinion, that petitioner has met the burden
*149
placed upon him to establish that he did not competently and intelligently waive his constitutional right to assistance of counsel.
SMITH, J., concurs in the above.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3888432. Public record. Not legal advice.