Rowley v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & Paroles
2013 SD 6
| S.D. | 2013Background
- Rowley pleaded guilty on October 12, 2007 to two Class 4 felonies and admitted habitual offender status with three prior non-violent felonies.
- The sentencing judge enhanced the principal felonies to two levels, effectively creating a Class 2 felony sentence, with two 21-year terms to be served consecutively.
- Rowley’s sentences began June 18, 2007; the DOC set an initial parole date of June 21, 2027, applying SDCL 24-15A-32 and treating the enhanced sentence as a Class 2 for parole purposes.
- Rowley applied to the Board for a true-and-correct parole eligibility date under SDCL 24-15A-33; the Board affirmed the DOC calculation in 2011, and the circuit court affirmed.
- The issue on appeal is whether the habitual offender enhancement (SDCL 22-7-8.1) changes the class of the principal felony for parole eligibility under SDCL 24-15A-32; the majority holds it does not.
- The matter is remanded to the Board to recalculate Rowley’s initial parole date consistent with the court’s interpretation; a dissent argues the opposite interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 22-7-8.1 changes the principal felony class for parole calculations | Rowley argues the habitual offender statute enhances punishment, not the principal felony class. | Rowley contends the Board should treat the enhanced sentence as a higher-class principal felony for parole timing. | Yes; the Board acted without authority; statutory language does not change principal felony class for parole. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cady, 422 N.W.2d 828 (S.D. 1988) (habitual offender increases punishment, not principal felony class)
- In re Novak, 447 N.W.2d 530 (S.D. 1989) (enhancement through SDCL 22-7-7)
- State v. Salway, 487 N.W.2d 621 (S.D. 1992) (habitual offender consequences discussed)
- State v. Stetter, 513 N.W.2d 87 (S.D. 1994) (sentence enhancement language discussed)
- State v. Guthmiller, 667 N.W.2d 295 (S.D. 2003) (habitual offender enhances sentence, not principal class)
- Brim v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 563 N.W.2d 812 (S.D. 1997) (parole scheme historical context)
- West v. Dooley, 792 N.W.2d 925 (S.D. 2010) (statutory interpretation limits)
- City of Deadwood v. M.R. Gustafson Family Trust, 777 N.W.2d 632 (S.D. 2010) (statutory text must be followed; cannot add language)