Court Opinion

ID: 9724065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:43:22.822016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:55.039878
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, J.
(concurring in result).

ISSUE 1

Board of Pardons and Paroles did not exceed its jurisdiction (due to Article II of the South Dakota Constitution dividing state government into three distinct departments). This is premised upon our holdings in State v. Huftile, 367 N.W.2d 193, 197 (S.D.1985), and State v. Oban, 372 N.W.2d 125, 129 (S.D.1985), both of which are settled law in this state and have not been overruled; I further base my opinion upon the express provisions of SDCL 23A-27-19.
Having so expressed, I concur in result only because the majority writing bases its rationale upon State v. Holter, 340 N.W.2d 691, 693 (S.D.1983), cited five times for authority; Hotter is not good law in this state as it was reversed by Hufbile in 1985. Further, rather than to cite to Oban which reaffirmed Hufbile, and Oban being solid law in this state, the majority opinion in its closing treatment on this issue cites to Application of Adams on Behalf of Schmit, 360 N.W.2d 513 (S.D.1985), also a reversed case. See Huftile, 367 N.W.2d at 197 (Wuest, J., concurring in result).
I confess: I am bewildered by the author’s series of forward and backward movements, all a part of the thinking process, which ultimately begets the creative product, i.e., the decision. Harnessed I am to Hufbile and Oban, believing they should have greater significance in the creative part of our base decision, rather than Hotter and Adams, the latter cases having been, by subsequent decision, overruled; whereas, the force of reasoning and controlling precedent abide in Huf-tile and Oban, I do abide therein. Accord: State v. Moon, 514 N.W.2d 705 (1994).

ISSUE 2

I concur. No advisement of rights. No attorney. Utter confusion in the scope of the proceeding. No proper notice. No reasonable opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. No due process. See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Butt v. Leapley, 507 N.W.2d 325, 329 (S.D.1993) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); Daugaard v. Baltic Coop Bldg. Supply Ass’n, 349 N.W.2d 419, 424 (S.D.1984).