Opinion ID: 2209852
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: [¶ 2.] The facts are not in dispute. [¶ 3.] In 1993, Hughes was convicted of having sexual contact with an eleven-year-old girl. He was sentenced to fifteen years in the penitentiary; eight years of the term were suspended. [¶ 4.] In September 1997, Hughes sentence was suspended. Based upon his history of sex offending, his significant alcohol and drug use, and his failure to complete the third phase of the STOP program, Hughes was placed on an intensive supervision program reserved for high risk offenders. [¶ 5.] Hughes signed a suspended sentence agreement on September 5, 1997. He agreed, in part, not to enter any establishment that derives its principal income from the sale of intoxicating beverages and to have no contact with any person(s) under age 18. Because of Hughes' hostile disagreement with these provisions, the supervising agent took great pains to explain their meaning to Hughes and to tell Hughes that he must strictly comply with the terms and conditions imposed upon him. Hughes was to remove himself from any close proximity to children and not place himself in a situation where children would be. There would be no mitigating circumstances for allowing him to enter a bar. Hughes' counselor and therapist explained the importance of these provisions: Patrick Hughes went through a group orientation which included the review of a standard sex offender treatment contract and his signing of that contract on September 09, 1997. Contract stipulations specifically indicate that no sex offender is to have contact with children under the age of 18 until approval is received from the sex offender treatment program and his parole agent. Patrick's contract also specifically stated that he would not have any alcohol or drug use. These requirements are not merely technical matters; these items are included to best insure that relapse in the area of alcohol and drug use and sexual offending do not occur. Patrick specifically questioned and challenged the items relating to contact with children but the treatment program maintained it's position with Pat, as it does with all offenders, that contact with children is a privilege which is earned over time after demonstrating significant treatment progress to reduce the risk of reoffending sexually. It is further noted that Patrick was somewhat confrontational during the 9-9-97 group orientation regarding issues of informed consent and the signing of necessary releases of information. Hughes signed the agreement and placed the words under duress after his signature. [¶ 6.] Within two months of his release, Hughes was taken into custody for violating terms specified in the suspended sentence agreement. He admitted that he had been in a bar on November 7, 1997 for an hour. He also admitted that he had, upon request, taken a friend to pick up her two-year-old daughter and had then given them both a ride to their home. [¶ 7.] While admitting the conduct, Hughes offered explanations for it. A co-worker was giving Hughes a ride home when Hughes became demanding. The co-worker stopped at a bar two miles outside of Sioux Falls. After waiting in the car for twenty minutes, Hughes entered the bar to call a cab. The co-worker said he was about to leave and would give Hughes a ride when a video lottery winner bought a round of drinks. Hughes remained in the bar and drank pop. As for giving the two-year-old and her mother a ride, Hughes said that he had no verbal or physical contact with the child. [¶ 8.] The Board of Pardons and Paroles found that Hughes' conduct violated condition # 136 and 13K of his suspended sentence agreement and that Hughes' explanations and mitigating arguments did not excuse or justify the conduct. It revoked the terms of the suspended sentence and fully imposed the terms of the original sentence. The circuit court affirmed, concluding All issues discussed in this appeal concern the Board's use of discretion in determining a sentence for the two violations. This court's standard of review is clear abuse of discretion in this instance. Turo v. Solem 427 N.W.2d 843 (S.D.1988). Nothing in the record indicates that their discretion was applied in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In fact the parole officer testified as to his concerns and reasons for issuing a violation of parole. The appeal is denied.