Opinion ID: 1801524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Defendant's Motion for Modification of Sentence

Text: Defendant claims error by the trial court by its refusal to consider defendant's motion for modification of sentence. SDCL 23-57-8 provides: All courts and the judges thereof having power to suspend sentence under § 23-57-5, and the power to parole first offenders under § 23-57-1, shall have and retain jurisdiction for the purpose of suspending any such sentence or granting any such parole for a period of one year from the effective date of the judgment of conviction, notwithstanding the fact that the time within which an appeal from such judgment may be taken shall be limited to a shorter period of time. The trial court entered its judgment and sentence on December 31, 1975. On December 30, 1976, defendant filed an application for modification of his sentence pursuant to SDCL 23-57-5 and SDCL 23-57-8. The trial court, without taking any evidence, denied defendant's application on the grounds that the application was not heard within one year of the effective date of the sentence. In other words, it was the trial court's view that this application must be filed with the court sufficiently in advance of the end of the one-year period set out in the statute that it may be heard prior to the expiration of that period. It would appear that the plain wording of SDCL 23-57-8 is dispositive of defendant's claim here. The statute directs that: All courts . . . shall have and retain jurisdiction for the purpose of suspending any such sentence or granting any such parole for a period of one year from the effective date of the judgment of conviction, . .. (emphasis added) The plain legislative intent expressed here is that a defendant is bound to make his application within a time frame that will permit the court to rule on the application sometime within the period of one year from the judgment of conviction. The defendant having failed to comply, there is no error here.