Title: State v. Moon
Citation: 514 N.W.2d 705
Docket Number: 18212
State: south-dakota
Issuer: south-dakota Supreme Court
Date: April 6, 1994

514 N.W.2d 705 (1994) STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. James D. MOON, Defendant and Appellant. No. 18212. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs September 3, 1993. Decided April 6, 1994. *706 Mark Barnett, Atty. Gen., Joan Boos Schueller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for appellee. James D. Moon, pro se. PER CURIAM. James D. Moon (Moon) pled guilty to DUI, SDCL 32-23-1, and a Part II information for prior offenses. SDCL 32-23-4.2. His written sentence read, in part: Moon filed an application for correction of sentence, SDCL 23A-31-1, arguing that the sentence imposed was an illegal sentence, SDCL 23A-27-18.1, and asking the court to delete the portion of the sentence requiring probation. The court overruled the motion. Moon, who has now been discharged from the penitentiary, appeals from this order. Moon contends that the trial court erred by imposing an eighteen month penitentiary term and a five year term of probation. We affirm in part and reverse in part. This issue was most recently discussed in State v. McConnell, 495 N.W.2d 658 (S.D. 1993): In McConnell, this Court reversed the sentence and remanded to the circuit court with directions to fashion a sentence consistent with the decision. This was in accordance with the Court's disposition of State v. Huftile, supra. In State v. Wooley, supra, however, we reversed one portion of the sentence to eliminate the objectionable simultaneous supervision. Consequently, elimination of probation is appropriate and required in this case. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST, HENDERSON, SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., participating.