Court Opinion

ID: 9698628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:56:14.7285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:42.413628
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in result).
I agree with the majority in denying Gregory’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus because Gregory failed to show reasonable cause pursuant to SDCL 21-27-16.1 “why he did not raise the same issues in his previous habeas proceeding.” I also agree with the letter and the spirit of the “Conclusion.” However, I would not adopt the federal “Cause and Prejudice test” for several reasons:
1. There is no need to do so, as the South Dakota statute is clear.
2. It unduly complicates an already complicated area of the law.
3. It unduly injects a new element of “prejudice” contrary to the plain wording of SDCL 21-27-16.1.
SDCL 21-27-16.1 provides in part:
Any ground not raised, finally adjudicated or knowingly and understanding^ waived ... may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds grounds for relief asserted which for reasonable cause were omitted or inadequately raised[.]
In other words, unless one can show reasonable cause why his grounds for relief were omitted, or inadequately raised, he cannot raise them as grounds for relief. Stated affirmatively: one can assert grounds for relief only if he can show reasonable cause why they were omitted or inadequately raised before.
This statutory language is clear. It has nothing to do with prejudice and it should have nothing to do with the federal “Cause and Prejudice test.”
In Gregory III, we held that Gregory was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to attempt to show reasonable cause why his current issues had not been raised in the previous petition. Gregory v. Solem, 420 N.W.2d 362 (S.D.1988). We did not hold that he must show reasonable cause and prejudice, and we should not do so now.