940 N.W.2d 672
S.D.2020Background
- Abdulrazzak, convicted in 2011 and later released on parole, had his parole revoked by the Board; an amended revocation order was served by mail on April 21, 2017.
- SDCL 1-26-31 requires serving and filing a notice of administrative appeal in the county clerk’s office within 30 days of service of the agency’s final decision.
- The Minnehaha County Clerk received and filed Abdulrazzak’s pro se notice of appeal on May 25, 2017 (34 days after service); Abdulrazzak claims he deposited the notice with prison mail on May 10.
- The Board moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as untimely; Abdulrazzak argued (a) application of a prison mailbox rule and (b) that SDCL 15-6-6(e)’s three-day mail addition and SDCL 15-6-6(a) computation made his May 25 filing timely. Counsel later withdrew and Abdulrazzak requested standby counsel at the dismissal hearing.
- The circuit court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed: it held SDCL 1-26-31 requires filing in the clerk’s office (no state prison-mailbox rule), and under SDCL 15-6-6(a)/(e) the added three days produced a 33-day deadline that expired before May 25. The court also denied review of the standby-counsel claim for lack of transcript and deferred ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/jurisdiction of administrative appeal | Abdulrazzak: prison-mailbox rule or civil-time rules (SDCL 15-6-6) make his May 25 filing timely | Board: SDCL 1-26-31 requires actual filing in clerk’s office within 30 days; May 25 was untimely | Affirmed. No state mailbox rule; SDCL 1-26-31 is jurisdictional; applying SDCL 15-6-6 majority computation gives a 33-day deadline that expired before May 25 |
| Denial of standby counsel & ineffective-assistance claim | Abdulrazzak: requested standby counsel when appointed counsel was discharged; alternatively counsel was ineffective for not raising 15-6-6(e) argument | Board: no record/transcript showing a request or denial; no basis to overturn without record | Affirmed. No transcript of hearing — presumption circuit court acted properly; ineffective-assistance claim not resolved on direct appeal (better suited to collateral review) |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (establishes federal prison-mailbox rule for timely filing of notices of appeal)
- Toua Hong Chang v. State, 778 N.W.2d 388 (refused to apply a state prison-mailbox rule; requires actual clerk receipt)
- State v. Parmar, 586 N.W.2d 279 (Neb. 1998) (rejected mailbox rule where statute required filing "in the office of the clerk")
- Lerro v. Quaker Oats Co., 84 F.3d 239 (7th Cir. 1996) (computing Rule 6(a) period before adding mailing days under Rule 6(e))
- Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 150 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 1998) (follows Lerro sequencing of time computation and mailing addition)
- In re Guardianship of Murphy, 827 N.W.2d 369 (S.D. 2013) (South Dakota precedent applying SDCL 15-6-6(e) to extend an appeal period; relied on by majority)
- Schreifels v. Kottke Trucking, 631 N.W.2d 186 (S.D. 2001) (SDCL 1-26-31 conditions for transferring jurisdiction to circuit court are jurisdictional)