State v. Whalen, 14682
| Decision Date | 05 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 14682,14682 |
| Citation | 367 N.W.2d 186 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Robert M. WHALEN, Defendant and Appellant. . Considered on Briefs |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
John W. Bastian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, S.D., for plaintiff and appellee; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, S.D., on brief.
Gregory J. Barnier, Rapid City, S.D., for defendant and appellant.
This is a criminal appeal arising from Fall River County wherein appellant contends that he was not under the continuing jurisdiction of the court. The circuit court affirmed a law magistrate's decision that appellant was under the jurisdiction of the court and then ordered him to serve the balance of a jail sentence (126 days) for violating the terms of his suspension. We affirm.
On June 14, 1983, Robert M. Whalen, appellant-defendant herein, pleaded guilty in Magistrate Court to Driving While Intoxicated-Second Offense. Magistrate Viken sentenced appellant to 180 days in jail and suspended his driver's license for one year. All but ten days of the jail sentence was suspended, however, on the conditions that: 1) after the ten-day sentence, appellant enter a 90-day inpatient treatment program and return to court thereafter for review of the sentence; 2) that appellant obey all laws for one year; and 3) that appellant pay all fines, costs, and court-appointed attorney fees. The treatment program was completed and on September 13, 1983, appellant's sentence was reviewed and suspended upon the condition, inter alia, that he obey all laws for one year. After violation of the conditions of his suspended sentence, appellant was ordered on December 6, 1983, to serve the remainder of his initial jail sentence. This action was reviewed on January 17, 1984, and appellant was released from jail and the remaining 126 days of his jail sentence was suspended. Among the conditions of this suspension was that appellant obey all laws.
On three separate occasions, appellant was before Magistrate Viken to have his jail sentence suspended. On the first two occasions, it was suspended and appellant was put on "probation" * under the condition, among others, that he obey all laws for one year. On the last occasion, however, appellant was simply required to obey all laws. No time period or limit was set by this January Order. Appellant now advocates that this latter Order suspended his jail sentence and put him on "probation" for 126 days. Appellant advances this argument because the only time frame mentioned in the January Order was the 126 days remaining in his jail sentence.
The last Order, dated January 31, 1984, omitted the one-year requirement. When a misunderstanding arose as to the length of "probation," appellant was informed in open court on June 12, 1984, that the January Order meant that he was on "probation" for one year. SDCL 23A-31-2 provides:
Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of a record and errors in a record arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by a court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. (Emphasis supplied.)
In light of the previous Orders' requirements and Magistrate Viken's actions, we hold the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...1 (1958); Franklin v. State, 87 Idaho 291, 298, 392 P.2d 552 (1964); State v. Randolph, 316 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Minn.1982); State v. Whalen, 367 N.W.2d 186, 187 (S.D.1985); see 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law § 1571(2), p. 459. It has been held that while a potential probationer may reject the offer o......
-
Lykken v. Class
...by a court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders." Application of this statute is illustrated in State v. Whalen, 367 N.W.2d 186 (S.D.1985). In Whalen, we held that where a court's order had omitted a one-year requirement of probation and the defendant was told in o......
-
Rapid City Journal v. Callahan
...id. ¶ 13, the Court [977 N.W.2d 751 upheld the circuit court's correction, see id. ¶ 18, 561 N.W.2d at 307. See also State v. Whalen , 367 N.W.2d 186, 187 (S.D. 1985) (upholding the circuit court's order entered six months later as "a valid correction of an oversight or omission as authoriz......
-
Coffey v. SD BD. OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, 20971.
...down fifteen minutes earlier were to run consecutively and not concurrently. Lykken, ¶¶ 9, 18, 561 N.W.2d at 305, 307. In State v. Whalen, 367 N.W.2d 186 (S.D.1985), we also held that the circuit court could clarify an order in which there was a misunderstanding on the length of probation o......