932 N.W.2d 135
S.D.2019Background
- Reck received two concurrent penitentiary sentences for separate aggravated-assault convictions (class 2 and class 3 felonies). The Department used SDCL 24-15A-32 parole grid to calculate parole eligibility.
- At sentencing Reck had three prior South Dakota felony convictions, all categorized nonviolent for parole-grid purposes.
- The Department counted Reck’s prior nonviolent felonies when applying the grid, treating the violent offenses as his third and second felonies and increasing the percent of sentence to be served before parole (75% and 70% under the grid calculations).
- Reck challenged the calculations, arguing SDCL 24-15A-32 does not permit combining nonviolent prior felonies with violent-current offenses to increase parole percentages; administrative appeals to the warden and BPP were denied.
- Circuit court affirmed the BPP; the Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the statutes permit using any prior felony (violent or nonviolent) to determine the grid column and prior-felony count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior nonviolent felonies may be counted under SDCL 24-15A-32 to increase parole percentages for current violent offenses | Reck: SDCL 24-15A-32 should not permit combining nonviolent priors with violent current offenses; his violent offenses should be assessed based only on prior violent felonies, yielding lower percentage thresholds | State/Dept.: The statutes (SDCL 24-15A-16 together with 24-15A-32) require counting any prior felony—violent or nonviolent—when determining the grid’s prior-felony axis and applicable percentage | The Court held the statutes are unambiguous: SDCL 24-15A-16 mandates considering any prior felony, and the grid’s "Felony Convictions" axis does not distinguish violent vs nonviolent priors; affirmation of Department and circuit court decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowley v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 826 N.W.2d 360 (S.D. 2013) (standards for appellate review of BPP decisions)
- Brant v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 809 N.W.2d 847 (S.D. 2012) (review standards for administrative appeals)
- State v. Jucht, 821 N.W.2d 629 (S.D. 2012) (de novo review of legal questions)
- State v. Bowers, 915 N.W.2d 161 (S.D. 2018) (statutory interpretation principles—plain meaning)
- Expungement of Oliver, 810 N.W.2d 350 (S.D. 2012) (statutory language controls legislative intent)
- Brim v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 563 N.W.2d 812 (S.D. 1997) (courts assume statutes mean what they say)