Rapid City Journal v. Callahan
Decision Date | 22 June 2022 |
Docket Number | #29811, #29812 |
Citation | 977 N.W.2d 742 |
Parties | RAPID CITY JOURNAL, Applicant, v. The Honorable Chad R. CALLAHAN, South Dakota Fourth Judicial Circuit Magistrate Judge, Respondent. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
977 N.W.2d 742
RAPID CITY JOURNAL, Applicant,
v.
The Honorable Chad R. CALLAHAN, South Dakota Fourth Judicial Circuit Magistrate Judge, Respondent.
#29811, #29812
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS JANUARY 10, 2022
OPINION FILED June 22, 2022
JON E. ARNESON, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorney for applicant.
JASON R. RAVNSBORG, Attorney General, PAUL S. SWEDLUND, Solicitor General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for respondent.
DEVANEY, Justice
[¶2.] Having now reviewed the parties’ submissions, we conclude that while the Journal does not have standing to challenge the sentence imposed by the magistrate court, it does have standing to challenge the magistrate court's seal order. We therefore examine the merits of the Journal's claim that the magistrate court violated its right to access Cammack's court file.
Factual and Procedural Background
[¶3.] In response to this Court's directive, Judge Callahan has provided the
[977 N.W.2d 744
following procedural history. On January 18, 2020, Cammack was arrested for and charged with speeding and first offense driving while under the influence in Meade County. Because of a conflict of interest, the Pennington County State's Attorney's Office prosecuted the action. Cammack initially pled not guilty, and thereafter, multiple status hearings were held. Although a jury trial was scheduled, the State and Cammack entered into a plea agreement after a pre-trial conference on June 10, 2021. The agreement provided that Cammack would plead guilty to careless driving and speeding, pay fines and costs, and not violate any laws for a period of six months. The agreement also contemplated that Cammack would request a suspended imposition of sentence. At a change of plea hearing on June 29, 2021, Judge Callahan accepted Cammack's guilty plea and granted a suspended imposition of sentence on the conditions that Cammack pay fines and costs and not violate any laws for six months. All of these proceedings were open to the public, and the court filings were likewise accessible to the public during the several months while these proceedings were occurring.
[¶5.] Counsel for Cammack then sent an email to the prosecutor asking whether he would object to a modification of the court's order suspending the imposition of sentence so that the case could be immediately sealed. The prosecutor did not object, and counsel for Cammack sent an email to Judge Callahan and the prosecutor, and copied the clerk of courts, asking whether the court would be willing to grant an immediate seal. After receiving Cammack's request, the clerk advised that no "Judgment" had been filed in the case. Judge Callahan responded that he would grant the request for an immediate seal, assuming the fines and costs had been paid. The prosecutor then indicated he would "follow up on the judgment."1 Judge Callahan thereafter signed and filed an order on October 4, 2021, sealing the court file. The seal order identified that Cammack had "observed all the conditions imposed by the [c]ourt." On this same date, presumably to rectify the fact noted by the clerk of court that a written order suspending the imposition of sentence had not been entered, Judge Callahan also entered a written order suspending the imposition of Cammack's sentence. However, this October
[977 N.W.2d 745
4, 2021 order contained the same condition initially ordered by the court that Cammack "obey all laws for six (6) months."
[¶7.] According to the Journal's statement of facts in its verified applications for alternative writs of mandamus or prohibition, the Journal received, upon request, further documentation from Cammack's counsel. The Journal received Judge Callahan's order sealing the court file entered on October 4, 2021, a copy of the arrest document, and a copy of the emails exchanged among counsel and Judge Callahan that led to the order sealing the court file. However, the Journal asserted in its verified applications that its "questions regarding the existence of [the seal] order" have "gone unanswered" by Judge Callahan and the prosecution.3
[¶8.] On November 1, 2021, the Journal requested, in its application for an alternative writ of prohibition and for permission to commence an original prohibition proceeding against Judge Callahan, that this Court enter a writ of prohibition barring the magistrate court from entering or enforcing the order granting Cammack a suspended imposition of sentence without a probation condition and prohibiting the court from enforcing the corresponding seal order. The Journal similarly requested in its application for an alternative writ of mandamus and permission to commence an original mandamus proceeding that this Court direct the magistrate court to unseal Cammack's court file and rescind any order to the contrary and to rescind any order that removes the probation condition.
[¶9.] After reviewing these applications, this Court issued an order on November
[977 N.W.2d 746
22, 2021, directing the Journal to address "the grounds for its standing to request either a writ of prohibition barring Respondent from granting a suspended imposition of sentence without requiring a term of probation, or a writ of prohibition prohibiting [Judge Callahan] from enforcing its order to seal [Cammack's] court file."4 We further directed Judge Callahan "to submit a response detailing the procedural history of the proceedings and his authority to seal [Cammack's] court file prior to the expiration of the timeframe set forth in any dispositional order, or final order filed by [the court]." Also, Judge Callahan was directed to "state whether any term of probation remains in effect under the terms of any dispositional order, or final order filed by [the court]." The parties have submitted their responses, and we now address the following issues:
1. Whether the Journal has standing to request either a writ of prohibition preventing the magistrate court from granting or enforcing an order suspending imposition of sentence that does not contain a term of probation as a condition or a writ of mandamus directing the rescission of any such order.
2. Whether the Journal has standing to request either a writ of prohibition preventing the magistrate court from enforcing its order sealing Cammack's court file or a writ of mandamus directing that the court rescind such order and unseal the court file.
3. Whether the magistrate court had authority to seal Cammack's court file prior to the expiration of the timeframe set forth in the governing dispositional order.
Analysis and Decision
[¶10.] "Under Article V, § 5 of the South Dakota Constitution, this [C]ourt has authority to issue, hear and determine any original or remedial writs." Dacy v. Gors , 471 N.W.2d 576, 578 (S.D. 1991). "[A]n applicant for a writ of prohibition must show that he or she has no ‘plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law’ available to them." Cummings v. Mickelson , 495 N.W.2d 493, 495 (S.D. 1993) (quoting SDCL 21-30-2 ). Further, "[t]o prevail on a writ of mandamus or prohibition, [p]etitioners must show ‘a clear legal right to performance of the specific duty sought to be compelled and the [respondent] must have a definite legal obligation to perform that duty.’ " Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Davis , 2012 S.D. 69, ¶ 13, 822 N.W.2d 62, 66 (citation omitted).
1. Whether the Journal has standing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial