977 N.W.2d 742
S.D.2022Background
- In Jan 2020 Gary Cammack was charged with speeding and first-offense DUI; in June 2021 he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea that contemplated a suspended imposition of sentence with conditions (pay fines/costs and “obey all laws” for six months).
- Proceedings and filings were public through June–October 2021; no written order suspending imposition of sentence had been filed initially, per the clerk’s notes.
- On October 4, 2021 Judge Callahan signed an order sealing the court file and (separately) a written order suspending imposition of sentence; the written order mistakenly retained the six-month "obey all laws" condition that the judge had intended to remove.
- The Rapid City Journal requested access after the seal; counsel and the prosecutor had exchanged emails agreeing to an immediate seal, and the judge stated he would grant it if fines/costs were paid.
- The judge later issued a corrective/amended order on December 15, 2021 removing the six-month condition and designated that amendment nunc pro tunc to October 4; the Journal sought original writs challenging both the sentencing modification and the seal.
- The Supreme Court held the Journal lacked standing to challenge the sentencing decision but had standing to challenge the seal; it ordered mandamus directing the magistrate to provide the Journal the records filed up to the December 15 amended order and declined to give the amended order nunc pro tunc effect insofar as doing so would prejudice the Journal’s access rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the sentencing order (suspension without probation) | Journal: has public interest/press right to ensure lawful administration; SDCL 23A-27-12.2 requires probation as condition | Judge: Journal is a third party with no beneficial interest in a defendant's sentence; statute gives court discretion ("may") | No standing. Journal cannot challenge the sentence; only interested parties may seek prohibition/mandamus on sentence. |
| Standing to challenge the sealing order | Journal: press has a First Amendment/right-of-access interest in court files; seal interfered with that access | Judge: did not dispute Journal’s standing to challenge the seal in responses | Journal has standing to challenge the seal; the denial of access was a proper basis for original writ relief. |
| Authority to seal the file on Oct. 4, 2021 (before six-month condition expired) | Journal: sealing before condition completion exceeded court authority under SDCL 23A-27 statutes and violated access rights | Judge: he intended and had authority to lift the condition; could modify probation under SDCL 23A-27-20.1 and correct clerical errors under SDCL 23A-31-2; later amended nunc pro tunc | The court had authority to modify conditions but did not actually enter a terminating order on Oct. 4; the October 4 seal improperly asserted conditions were satisfied. The December 15 correction was within judicial power, but the court declined to give it nunc pro tunc effect where that retroactivity would prejudice the Journal. The Journal is entitled to the records existing up to the amended order date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dacy v. Gors, 471 N.W.2d 576 (S.D. 1991) (Supreme Court’s authority to issue original writs)
- Cummings v. Mickelson, 495 N.W.2d 493 (S.D. 1993) (requirement that no plain, speedy, adequate remedy exist for writ relief)
- Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Davis, 822 N.W.2d 62 (S.D. 2012) (mandamus/prohibition requires clear legal right and definite duty)
- Sioux Falls Argus Leader v. Miller, 610 N.W.2d 76 (S.D. 2000) (press standing to challenge orders that restrict sources of information)
- Lykken v. Class, 561 N.W.2d 302 (S.D. 1997) (courts may correct clerical mistakes under SDCL 23A-31-2)
- Andersen v. Andersen, 922 N.W.2d 801 (S.D. 2019) (nunc pro tunc entries described as correcting the record to ‘‘speak the truth’')
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1990) (nonparties lack a judicially cognizable interest in another’s criminal sentence)