Court Opinion

ID: 9724345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:53:38.671138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:59.520651
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Justice
(concurring specially in part and dissenting in part).
Based upon the learned text of Senior United States Circuit Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert, I write specially to express my opinion on the matters the majority does not join. As Senior Judge Aldisert states:
The author of a majority opinion may be placed in a position where other members of the majority are not willing to go as far as he does. Under such circumstances, it is entirely proper for the majority-writing judge to add a concurring opinion of [his] own.
Opinion Writing, § 11.4, at 168 (1990).
I question the propriety of the circuit court setting aside the judgment1 in response to the gratuitous legal advice of Justice Sabers in his dissenting opinion in Moeller II. When Judge Jones sentenced Moeller, Runge v. State, 86 S.D. 9, 190 N.W.2d 381 (1971) was the law and is respectable authority for the validity of the judgment. We denied habeas twice, albeit for procedural reasons. Be that as it may, the coram nobis judgment was never appealed and its correctness is not an issue in this proceeding.
SDCL ch. 21-32 provides for the office of commissioner of claims. It further provides for the appointment of a circuit judge to act ex officio as commissioner. SDCL 21-32-7 provides:
[T]he commissioner shall prepare his findings, fully itemized, in respect to the amount of the claim or damages. Such findings shall be filed in the office of the *735clerk of courts of the county in which the petition was filed and a duplicate thereof filed in the office of the Governor, who shall submit the same to the next session of the Legislature for consideration, compromise, settlement or rejection by appropriate action. The findings of the commissioner shall be advisory only, and shall not be construed or considered as an acknowledgment of liability in any manner or extent on the part of the state.
By the plain terms of this chapter, the appointed circuit judge does not act as a circuit judge. It appears to me he is an agent of the Legislature since the Legisla^ ture makes the final decision as to whether or not a claim is paid. This may violate the separation of powers doctrine. Application of Nelson, 83 S.D. 611, 163 N.W.2d 533 (1968).
Finally the State urges dismissal of this appeal because SDCL 21-32-1 et seq. does not provide for an appeal.2 Since the commissioner of claims is a legislative instrumentality or agency Conway v. Humbert, 82 S.D. 317, 145 N.W.2d 524 (1966), and no provision is made for an appeal to this Court, I would grant the State’s motion to dismiss. South Dakota Dept. of Transp. v. Freeman, 378 N.W.2d 241 (S.D.1985).
Although I would dismiss the appeal, a majority of the court holds otherwise. I have written the majority opinion accordingly.

. We note that Circuit Judge Zinter was not the circuit judge who set aside the judgment.

. For the benefit of Justice Sabers, I am „not urging constitutional grounds for dismissal of the appeal, rather lack of statutory grounds for an appeal. Please read South Dakota Dept. of Transp. v. Freeman, infra.