975 N.W.2d 150
S.D.2022Background
- In 2018 a grand jury indicted Spencer LaCroix on multiple sexual-offense counts based on abuse of his daughter C.L. spanning 2000–2018; count 2 alleged first-degree rape "on or about January through December 2002."
- C.L. was born January 21, 1992, so she was under ten until January 21, 2002 — a fact relevant to which statutory age element applied in 2002.
- LaCroix entered a written nolo contendere plea to counts 2 (first-degree rape) and 3 (misdemeanor sexual contact) pursuant to a plea agreement that included extensive waivers; the court imposed a 25-year penitentiary sentence (with five years suspended) on count 2.
- LaCroix later filed a habeas petition asserting (1) the indictment did not describe a public offense because the 2002 statute required the victim be under ten, (2) an ex post facto application occurred because the charged indictment language referenced a younger-than-13-age element enacted later, and (3) the charges violated the statute of limitations.
- The habeas court denied relief but granted a certificate of probable cause (CPC) limited to whether the 2012 amendment to SDCL 22-22-1 effected an ex post facto application; LaCroix appealed and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction: timeliness of CPC and notice of appeal | LaCroix filed for CPC after memorandum decision but before final order; argued CPC adequate | State: early CPC and notice before final order deprive this Court of jurisdiction | Court: CPC, though filed before final order, was sufficient; SDCL rules treat pre-final notices as filed on final judgment date; appellate jurisdiction exists |
| Indictment charged a public offense / court jurisdiction | LaCroix: indictment did not describe a public offense because 2002 statute required victim <10 and count alleged victim <13 | State: indictment alleged a timeframe that included dates when victim was <10 and cited the statute, so it charged a public offense | Court: indictment sufficiently alleged a public offense; defects were non-jurisdictional and waived by plea |
| Ex post facto claim | LaCroix: he was convicted under a statute (victim <13) that post‑dated the alleged conduct, so prosecution was ex post facto | State: indictment alleged conduct within a period when the pre‑amendment (<10) offense could apply and the sentence imposed was within the pre‑amendment maximum | Court: no ex post facto violation; claim really challenged the factual basis (whether victim was <10), which LaCroix waived by pleading nolo contendere |
| Statute of limitations | LaCroix: charges were time‑barred because they were filed after victim turned 25 or beyond seven years | State: limitations defense is non‑jurisdictional and waived; also the CPC did not certify this issue | Court: declined to address statute‑of‑limitations claim because it was not certified in the CPC and is outside scope of this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhines v. Weber, 608 N.W.2d 303 (S.D. 2000) (habeas is a limited collateral remedy and petitioner bears the burden)
- Outka v. State, 844 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 2014) (statutory citation errors and omitted elements are non‑jurisdictional indictment defects waived by plea)
- Honomichl v. State, 333 N.W.2d 797 (S.D. 1983) (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- Christensen v. Weber, 740 N.W.2d 622 (S.D. 2007) (CPC requirements are jurisdictional and govern appellate review of habeas denials)
- Iannarelli v. Young, 904 N.W.2d 82 (S.D. 2017) (CPC must identify specific constitutional issues and show probable cause)
- McDonough v. Weber, 859 N.W.2d 26 (S.D. 2015) (failure to establish factual basis for plea is not generally a habeas issue)
- Stumes v. Delano, 508 N.W.2d 366 (S.D. 1993) (defining ex post facto violations)