Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

368 N.W.2d 37

State v. Martin

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1985

South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1985-05-01

Applies SD 23A § 23A-27-19 · SD 24 § 24-15-14 · SD 24 § 24-15-24 · SD 24 § 24-15-8

Relies on State v. Huftile

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-05-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2024

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

5019851990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*40FOSHEIM, Chief Justice

¶1(dissenting).

¶2Martin was sentenced on March 14,1979. Three years of his eight year sentence was suspended. He was paroled and released from the penitentiary on September 30, 1980. On August 4, 1984, the trial court revoked the suspended portion of the sentence and returned Martin to the penitentiary.

¶3In State v. Huftile, 367 N.W.2d 193 (S.D.1985), we said:

A penitentiary inmate is accordingly eligible for release either by the Board of Charities and Corrections, SDCL 24-15-8, or a suspended sentence from the trial court. Via either route, the inmate becomes a parolee under the supervision of the Board of Charities and Corrections. See, SDCL 24-15-14; SDCL 23A-27-19. Under SDCL 24-15-24 only the Board of Pardons and Paroles may “revoke the parole and reinstate the terms of the original sentence and conviction.” Uncertainty, if not chaos will result if a parolee is required to satisfy two supervisors; the sentencing court and the Board of Charities and Corrections, each with a different set of restrictions and conditions.

¶4Affirming this revocation is inconsistent with Huftileand fuels the very confusion we there tried to settle.

/368/nw2d/37 · .json · Public domain