With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". knowingly and voluntarily enter his guilty plea. The circuit court agreed, and we granted the State’s petition for an intermediate appeal. We reverse. [¶ 2.] Wolf was arrested for DUI on March 31, 2013, in Pennington County. The State filed a part II information charging Wolf with third offense DUI based on a 2005 DUI conviction in Cass County, North Dakota and a 2012 DUI conviction in Pennington County. [¶ 3.] Wolf filed a King challenge to the validity of his 2005 DUI conviction for sentence-enhancement purposes. See State v. King, 383 N.W.2d 854 (S.D.1986) (abrogated by State v. Chant, 2014 S.D. 77, 856 N.W.2d 167). Wolf argued that he had not knowingly and voluntarily entered a guilty plea on that conviction. He contended that at the time of the plea, he was not pro (9th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Custis/Chant procedural bar to

A: holding mississippi convictions counted as criminal history points because the defendant did not testify that he was unaware of his right to counsel or that his waiver was invalid
B: holding that in order for a waiver of counsel to be valid the trial court must ensure that the defendants waiver of his right to counsel is done knowingly and intelligently so that the record establishes that the defendants choice is made with eyes open
C: holding that the prior conviction was valid for calculation of the defendants criminal history because his waiver of the right to counsel was valid
D: recognizing that the burden to establish a valid waiver of a constitutional right is upon the prosecution
C.