Court Opinion

ID: 9741856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:03:07.823504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:26.833512
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with that part of the majority opinion holding that the trial court improperly revoked Grosh’s work release. However, I dissent from the ultimate result which fully reinstates the modified sentence and which, at least impliedly, prohibits the trial court from examining Grosh’s prior conduct to ascertain, in an appropriate proceeding, whether work release should be revoked for such conduct.
*829Initially, I should state that I disagree with the majority’s interchangeable use of the words “modification” and “reduction.” The terms are not synonymous. However, under the facts of this case, the “modification” was a “reduction.” There are other cases where that would not necessarily be true.
I further agree with the majority that the trial court had the authority to enter its Order Modifying Sentence on June 23, 1986. Irrespective of how it is styled, the trial court had jurisdiction to either suspend the sentence under SDCL 23A-27-18, 19 (which the State concedes) or to reduce it under SDCL 23A-31-1 (which the State also concedes). In either event, the result is a “modification” as prayed for and ordered.
In my view, Grosh and the majority tend to overlook (or give slight shrift to) the true error made by Judge Tice which caused this dilemma, namely that he modified the terms and conditions of probation without notice and without good cause shown as required by SDCL 23A-27-20.1. Further, he could arguably be accused of revoking probation (or an important term of probation) without following the appropriate due process safeguards of SDCL 23A-27-20 as interpreted by this court in State v. McCormick, 385 N.W.2d 121 (S.D. 1986); State v. Ellefson, 334 N.W.2d 56 (S.D.1983); State v. Olson, 305 N.W.2d 852 (S.D.1981).
Rather than following appropriate procedures, Judge Tice, sua sponte conducted a “review hearing,” (a proceeding foreign to our statutes and this author.) Apparently, Grosh and his attorney were directed, via the court services officer, to appear before Judge Tice to review the probationary situation. When they appeared before the judge, he initially reviewed with them Grosh’s financial condition, coupled with restitution issues. Judge Tice then indicated that he was perturbed over recent developments indicating that his work release intentions had not been followed, that work release was a priority issue (to Judge Tice), and since he (Judge Tice) was considering revoking work release he suggested a recess to afford defendant an opportunity to make some proposals (the State took no position). After the recess (of approximately one hour) and upon hearing the various comments by defendant and his counsel, Judge Tice again indicated that he was disappointed that Grosh had abused the opportunity of work release and, since Grosh had failed to comply, the only approach was to revoke work release. No testimony or other evidence was presented. The entire proceeding was a colloquy between the court, Grosh and counsel. The procedures of the “review hearing” totally ignored due process safeguards. As a result, revocation of work release was improper. SDCL 23A-27-20, 20.1; McCormick, supra; Ellefson, supra; Olson, supra.
Although the findings of the referee may be generally accurate as to most of the facts surrounding the merits of whether work release should have been revoked, I cannot accept them in toto (note that several of the findings are, in reality, conclusions of law (e.g. XXVI, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVII, XLI, XLIV, XLV, XLVI, and XLVIII)). Remember also that these were facts which Judge Tice (through his own fault) had no opportunity to hear.
In my view, trial courts should have an opportunity to monitor and supervise probation without interference from us, whether we are acting as a habeas corpus or appellate court, assuming proper procedures and legal precedent are followed. From my reading of the habeas corpus chapter (SDCL ch. 21-27), I conclude that our role here is to determine whether the defendant is improperly incarcerated because improper procedures were followed (SDCL 21-27-16(2) and (3)). Our function is not to modify a sentence or to re-sentence a defendant.
Therefore, although I agree that the order entered by Judge Tice revoking the work release is a nullity and that the June 23, 1986, order should be reinstated as it existed prior to December 5, 1986, I would not prohibit Judge Tice from conducting an additional hearing, following the appropriate procedural steps, to determine whether *830the work release conditions had been previously violated.