Case Name: STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. John ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1985-01-02
Citations: 360 N.W.2d 519
Docket Number: No. 14469
Parties: STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. John ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: MORGAN, J., and WUEST, Circuit Judge, Acting as Supreme Court Justice, concur.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 360
Pages: 519–523

Head Matter:
STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. John ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 14469.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Considered on Briefs Sept. 13, 1984.
Decided Jan. 2, 1985.
jFohn W. Bastían, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee; Mark Y. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.
Jeff Larson, Minnehaha County Public Defender, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
WOLLMAN, Justice.
Defendant appeals from an order revoking his suspended sentence. We affirm.
On October 28, 1980, defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated assault. On November 19, 1980, defendant appeared before the Honorable Wayne W. Christensen, one of the judges of the Second Judicial Circuit, who pronounced the following sentence from the bench:
And it is the judgment and sentence of this Court that John Adams, the defendant herein, be sentenced to a term of six years in the South Dakota State Penitentiary there to be kept and confined in accordance with the rules and regulations governing that institution. It is further the order, judgment of this Court that the latter four years of this judgment and sentence of this Court be suspended upon the condition that he pays the cost of hospitalization and medical expenses incurred by the victim in this case . That he subject himself to the supervision and control of the Office of Corrections under the Department of Pardons and Paroles.
That same day a written judgment was entered, which provided in part that defendant
be imprisoned in the South Dakota State Penitentiary, located in Sioux Falls, County of Minnehaha and State of South Dakota, for
Six (6) years, with said sentence to run concurrent with defendant's present sentence in the Minnehaha County Jail and with the last four years of said sentence being suspended on the following conditions:
1. That the said defendant reimburse [the victim] for medical expenses incurred in connection with this case.
2. That the said defendant be under the supervision of the Office of Correctional Services for and during a period of four years.
The record does not reveal that a copy of this judgment was personally served upon defendant.
On October 1, 1981, defendant was released from the penitentiary on parole. As a condition of release, defendant signed an agreement that day with the Office of Correctional Services, Board of Charities and Corrections, which contained some fourteen separately numbered paragraphs setting forth the conditions of his being paroled. One of the conditions stated that "I will obey all laws."
On July 23, 1982, defendant was released from parole. At the revocation hearing, the state stipulated that at the time defendant was released from parole he was told by Don Kinder, his parole agent, that he had no further obligation to the Board of Charities and Corrections.
On July 4, 1983, defendant was arrested on a charge of aggravated assault. He was tried on this charge on September 27, 1983, and was found guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault.
On October 6, 1983, the state filed a motion to revoke the 1980 suspended sentence on the basis of the 1983 simple assault conviction. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the 1980 suspension and sentenced defendant to serve the remaining four years of the 1980 aggravated assault sentence.
Defendant contends that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his suspended sentence in that as of July 1983, only the Board of Pardons and Paroles had such jurisdiction. Defendant frames this argument in terms of the doctrine of separation of powers. He argues that under our present sentencing statutes, once a sentencing court turns a sentenced defendant over to the Office of Correctional Services, Board of Charities and Corrections, there is no provision in law that would allow the trial court to recapture the juris diction it has surrendered. Defendant contends that the only statute authorizing a sentencing court to place a person under the supervision of the Board of Charities and Corrections is SDCL 23A-27-19, which provides:
A court which has the power to suspend sentence under § 23A-27-18 shall have and retain jurisdiction for the purpose of suspending any such sentence for a period of one year from the effective date of the judgment of conviction, notwithstanding the fact that the time for an appeal from such judgment is limited to a shorter period of time. A person whose sentence is suspended pursuant to this section is under the supervision of the board of charities and corrections, except as provided in § 23A-27-18.2. The board is charged with the responsibility for enforcing the conditions imposed by the sentencing judge.
Defendant argues that after the one-year period provided by SDCL 23A-27-19 expires, the circuit court has no further jurisdiction to revoke a previously suspended sentence.
We conclude that our holdings in In re Adams, 360 N.W.2d 513 (S.D.1985), and in State v. Hotter, 340 N.W.2d 691 (S.D.1983), clearly answer defendant's contention in this regard. Based upon those decisions, we hold that the trial court was not without jurisdiction to revoke the previously suspended portion of defendant's sentence. As we held in In re Adams with respect to SDCL 23A-27-19,
This statute is simply an additional grant of power to suspend a sentence after it has been imposed. Nothing in this statute limits the court's power to suspend a portion of a sentence at the time it is imposed.
360 N.W.2d at 516 (emphasis in original).
Defendant's next contention is that even if the trial court had jurisdiction to revoke the suspended portion of the original sentence, that authority vanished once the Office of Correctional Services, acting through the parole agent, discharged defendant from supervision. Again, we do not agree with defendant's contention. Although the fact that the Office of Correctional Services informed defendant that he was under no further obligation to that agency is an argument against the imposition of the type of sentence entered against defendant, we do not believe that the Office of Correctional Services could through its unilateral action deprive the circuit court of its continuing jurisdiction, recognized in Holter and in Adams, supra, to revoke the suspended portion of the sentence.
Finally, defendant makes the related arguments that he was deprived of liberty without due process of law because he had no knowledge that he was subject to revocation proceedings based upon a violation of law and because he had never been made aware of the four-year period of supervision. We find neither argument to have merit. First, in Holter, and again in Adams, we held that it is an implied condition in every suspended sentence that a defendant shall not violate the law. Second, defendant was made aware at the time of his sentencing that he was subject to the supervision and control of the Office of Correctional Services during the four-year suspended portion of his sentence.
Having reaffirmed our holdings in Holter and Adams, we take this opportunity to express our misgivings about the wisdom of imposing a penitentiary sentence followed by a suspended sentence. It is one thing to say that the imposition of such a sentence does not constitute a violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers or run afoul of our sentencing statutes. There remains the question whether the imposition of such a sentence casts a burden upon the Board of Charities and Corrections that is not in keeping with the comity that should exist between the judicial and executive branches of state government. We note that the legislature apparently has taken no action in response to our decision in Holter. It may be that our concern about the imposition of such sentences is unwarranted. If, however, there is reason for concern, presumably the Board of Charities and Corrections will make its views known through legislative channels.
The order revoking the suspended sentence is affirmed.
MORGAN, J., and WUEST, Circuit Judge, Acting as Supreme Court Justice, concur.
FOSHEIM, C.J., and HENDERSON, J., dissent.