State v. Cook, 865 N.W.2d 878

In 2008 Cook was convicted by jury of aggravated assault and simple assault; he admitted to enhancement and habitual-offender informations.
At sentencing in January 2009 Judge Rusch imposed 20 years with 10 years suspended for aggravated assault and 2 years for simple assault, to run concurrently; an amended judgment followed.
Cook appealed his conviction; this Court summarily affirmed in 2009. Later he sought sentence modification and then filed a motion (2014) to correct an illegal sentence claiming the oral pronouncement was ambiguous/contradictory.
Cook’s core claim: the sentencing judge orally said he retained control/jurisdiction for the entire sentence and referenced probation, but under SD law the court’s jurisdiction to suspend or modify sentences generally extends only two years, and supervision after incarceration is by the Parole Board.
The circuit court denied relief, finding the oral pronouncement unambiguous as to the actual penalty and that references to probation were superfluous; Cook appealed that denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence was illegal because the oral pronouncement was ambiguous or internally contradictory	State: sentence is lawful as pronounced; written judgment conforms and oral ambiguities can be clarified by the record	Cook: oral statement that court retained jurisdiction for entire term and references to probation made the sentence ambiguous/illegal	Court: Affirmed—oral pronouncement, read as a whole and clarified by the written judgment, was not so ambiguous or contradictory as to be illegal

State v. Thayer, 713 N.W.2d 608 (S.D. 2006) (oral sentence controls over written when conflict exists)
State v. Munk, 453 N.W.2d 124 (S.D. 1990) (written sentence may clarify oral ambiguities)
State v. Thomas, 499 N.W.2d 621 (S.D. 1993) (illegal sentences include those that are ambiguous or internally contradictory)
State v. Cady, 422 N.W.2d 828 (S.D. 1988) (factors to determine oral pronouncement ambiguity)
United States v. Moss, 614 F.2d 171 (8th Cir. 1980) (sentencing court must express sentence with fair certainty to avoid misapprehension)