Title: State v. Thomas

State: south-dakota

Issuer: South Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

499 N.W.2d 621 (1993) STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Michael S. THOMAS, Defendant and Appellant. Nos. 17944, 17950. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs on February 10, 1993. Decided April 28, 1993. Mark Barnett, Atty. Gen., Patricia Cronin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee. Patrick Schroeder, Minnehaha County Public Defender's Office, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant. PER CURIAM. Michael Shawn Thomas (Thomas) appeals two orders denying his motions for correction of sentence. We affirm. Separate complaints, and later informations, were filed charging Thomas with Thomas pled guilty to each charge. The trial court filed separate judgments for each of the three convictions on April 19, 1989. The sentences were to be served consecutively. On April 12, 1990, Thomas filed a motion to modify the sentences. He also filed a motion to correct the sentences which alleged that the judgments entered for the two convictions resulting from the February 14, 1989 search and arrest did not reflect whether they arose from the same transaction. According to his attorney's supporting affidavit this was necessary since the penitentiary, pursuant to SDCL 24-15-6 and 24-15-7, is required to determine "whether the convictions reported by the court are `arising from the same transaction,' " in computing parole eligibility. The penitentiary was treating Thomas as having three convictions. The trial court, Judge Amundson, denied Thomas' motions noting there were "three separate pleas to three separate felonies to be sentenced on each one separately." The court held the record was clear but if Thomas felt the Parole Board was not treating him accurately he could pursue administrative remedies. The court filed its order denying the motion to correct sentence and denying the motion to modify sentence on April 23, 1990. Thomas did not appeal from this order. Two years later Thomas filed a motion for correction of sentence together with a supporting affidavit seeking once again a statement the convictions resulting from the February 14, 1989, search and arrest *622 arose from the same transaction. The circuit court, Judge Srstka, ruled because the sentences were not illegal, there was no jurisdiction to reconsider the matter. He appeals. SDCL 23A-31-1 provides: Thomas does not contend that his sentences were imposed in an illegal manner. Had he, such a contention would have been beyond the trial court's jurisdiction since three years had passed since imposition of sentence. Thomas argues that his sentences are illegal, and therefore correctable at any time, because the judgments do not recite whether the convictions arise from the same transaction. Thomas believes that this language is mandated by SDCL 24-15-7 which provides, in part SDCL 23A-27-4, however, mandates what a judgment of conviction must contain: In this case the judgment met these statutory requirements. There were multiple convictions and separate judgments were entered, leading to the implication that the trial court viewed the convictions as arising from different transactions. This is consistent with Judge Amundson and State's Attorney Nelson's recollection, harmonizes with SDCL 24-15-7, and, contrary to Thomas' assertion, does show a trial court determination of whether or not the convictions arise out of the same transaction. "[I]llegal sentences are essentially only those which exceed the relevant statutory maximum limits or violate double jeopardy or are ambiguous or internally contradictory." 8A J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 35.06(a) (2d ed.1992). See State v. Bucholz, 403 N.W.2d 400 (S.D.1987). Thomas' sentences are not illegal. Therefore, the circuit court, Judge Srstka, did not have any jurisdiction to correct them. The orders are affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST, HENDERSON and SABERS, JJ., participating. AMUNDSON, J., disqualified.