841 N.W.2d 244
S.D.2013Background
- Davis, an inmate, was convicted in 2002 of possession of an unauthorized article by an inmate and sentenced to 15 years, consecutive to a prior 1998 assault sentence.
- Davis pled guilty to the unauthorized-article count as part of a plea deal; other charges were dismissed.
- On June 16, 2010, Davis filed a habeas corpus petition alleging constitutional violations, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel and failure to preserve appellate rights.
- The habeas court applied SDCL 21-27-3.2, which prior to its 2012 repeal required dismissal if delay caused prejudicial effects to the State, including a five-year prejudice presumption.
- The petition was filed more than seven years after conviction, and the State moved to dismiss for prejudice to respond, arguing the five-year prejudice presumption applied; Davis argued he rebutted prejudice and that the State could not show prejudice in retrying him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 21-27-3.2 prejudice presumption applies and is rebuttable. | Davis argues he rebutted the presumption with substantial evidence on the merits. | The State contends the presumption of prejudice applies and Davis did not rebut it. | Yes; the Court held the presumption applied but concluded Davis failed to rebut prejudice to the State in its ability to respond. |
| Whether prejudice to respodent’s ability to retry the petitioner is a valid ground for dismissal. | Davis contends prejudice to retrying is not a valid dismissal ground; focus should be on ability to respond. | State argues retrial prejudice is a valid ground to consider. | The Court held that prejudice to the State’s ability to retry is not a valid ground; however, the valid ground was prejudice to the State’s ability to respond to the petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1986) (prejudice not tied to retrial; focus on response capability)
- Flute v. Class, 1997 S.D. 10, 559 N.W.2d 554 (S.D. 1997) (purpose of SDCL 21-27-3.2 to prevent delay impairing State response)
- Garritsen v. Leapley, 541 N.W.2d 89 (S.D. 1995) (similarities between SDCL 21-27-3.2 and former Rule 9(a))
- Fast Horse v. Weber, 2013 S.D. 74, 838 N.W.2d 831 (S.D. 2013) (habeas review is limited; standard of review for factual findings)
- Steiner v. Weber, 2011 S.D. 40, 815 N.W.2d 549 (S.D. 2011) (habeas review scope; prerequisites)