State v. Clark
2017 SD 19
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jonathan Clark was convicted in 2009 in Illinois of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (a felony) and later moved to South Dakota, where he was required to register as a sex offender.
- In 2014 law enforcement discovered Clark was living at motels and not at his registered address; he was indicted on two counts for failing to report a new address in violation of SDCL 22-24B-12.
- SDCL 22-24B-12.1 provides that a second or subsequent failure-to-register offense is a Class 5 felony; single failures are Class 6 felonies under the registration statutes.
- The State did not seek enhancement under the registration-specific repeat-offender statute (22-24B-12.1); instead it filed part II informations under the general habitual-offender statute, SDCL 22-7-7, based on Clark’s prior Illinois felony.
- Clark pleaded guilty to the registration counts but moved to dismiss the part II informations, arguing the specific registration enhancement statute preempted use of the general habitual-offender statute; the trial court denied the motion and imposed Class 5 felony sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the registration-specific enhancement statute (SDCL 22-24B-12.1) preempts use of the general habitual-offender statute (SDCL 22-7-7) to enhance a failure-to-register conviction when the defendant has an unrelated prior felony. | The State argued SDCL 22-7-7 may be used to enhance the registration offenses when the defendant has a qualifying prior felony. | Clark argued SDCL 22-24B-12.1 is the exclusive enhancement mechanism for repeated registration violations and thus preempts SDCL 22-7-7; because the State did not proceed under 22-24B-12.1, the part II informations must be dismissed. | The Court held the statutes serve distinct purposes and 22-24B-12.1 does not preempt 22-7-7; the trial court properly denied dismissal and could enhance under the habitual-offender statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Solem, 424 N.W.2d 155 (S.D. 1988) (court declined double enhancement when a repeat-offender statute already elevated the offense level)
- State v. Guthmiller, 667 N.W.2d 295 (S.D. 2003) (general habitual-offender statute may apply in addition to a crime-specific enhancement statute because they have distinct purposes)
- Meinders v. Weber, 604 N.W.2d 248 (S.D. 2000) (sex-offender registration statutes serve the regulatory purpose of assisting law enforcement)
- Rowley v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 826 N.W.2d 360 (S.D. 2013) (habitual criminal statutes aim to punish persistence in crime)