The
SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
- Appellate jurisdiction lacking in regard to
Trial Court’s denial of sentence reduction motion
STATE
v. EDELMAN, 2022 S.D. 7: Inmate sought
reduction in sentence by the sentencing court asserting that:
a reduction or suspension of
his remaining sentence was appropriate because he was low risk, compliant while
in custody, made restitution, satisfied all fines, costs, and fees, and needed
medical treatment outside of the penitentiary.
The
Motion to Modify sentence was filed 7 months after conviction and, therefore,
timely under both SDCL 23A-27-19 (“[t]he sentencing court retains jurisdiction
for the purpose of suspending any sentence for a period of two years from the
effective date of the judgment of conviction[.]”) and SDCL 23A-31-1 (“A court
may reduce a sentence . . . [w]ithin two years after the sentence is
imposed[.]”).
The
trial court denied Inmate’s motion and Inmate appealed.
The
SD Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that there is no statutory
authorization. The Court stated:
[¶13.] [Inmate’s] motion to
modify his sentence asked the circuit court to suspend the remainder of his
sentence pursuant to SDCL 23A-27-19 or reduce his sentence under SDCL 23A-31-1.
Both statutes provide the circuit court with jurisdiction for a period of two
years from the date of the entry of the judgment of conviction to consider a
motion to reduce a sentence. However, neither statute creates appellate
jurisdiction from an order denying or granting a motion to reduce a sentence,
nor does chapter 23A-32 provide this Court with jurisdiction to consider an
appeal of such an order by either a defendant or the State.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
This
decision may be accessed at
