970 N.W.2d 239
S.D.2022Background
- Edelman pleaded guilty to one count of intentional damage to property pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend a one-year suspended sentence concurrent with an existing penitentiary sentence.
- The circuit court instead sentenced Edelman to six years with one year suspended to run consecutive to his prior Kingsbury County sentence; judgment was filed August 26, 2020.
- Edelman did not appeal the sentencing judgment. About seven months later he moved to modify/suspend or reduce his sentence based on severe deteriorating health and need for outside medical care.
- At the modification hearing Edelman and his mother testified about his medical condition; the State opposed reduction, called him a career criminal, and did not mention the plea agreement; Edelman did not object at the hearing.
- The court denied the motion to modify the sentence. Edelman appealed, arguing the State breached the plea agreement at the modification hearing by failing to recommend the agreed sentence.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, concluding no statute authorizes an appeal from an order denying a post-conviction sentence-reduction/modification motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order denying a motion to modify/reduce a sentence. | State: did not contest jurisdiction below or on appeal. | Edelman: invoked SDCL 15-26A-3 and SDCL ch. 23A-32 to support appellate jurisdiction. | Court: No jurisdiction. Statutes provide no right or discretionary basis to appeal a post-conviction sentence-modification denial; dismissal. |
| Whether the State breached the plea agreement at the sentence-modification hearing by failing to recommend the agreed one-year suspended concurrent sentence. | State: opposed reduction at the hearing and did not reference the plea deal; did not assert any breach. | Edelman: contends the State breached the plea agreement by not recommending the agreed sentence at the modification hearing. | Court: Did not reach the merits of the breach claim because appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Koch, 818 N.W.2d 793 (S.D. 2012) (jurisdiction must affirmatively appear from the record; court must sua sponte address jurisdictional defects)
- Decker ex rel. Decker v. Tschetter Hutterian Brethren, Inc., 594 N.W.2d 357 (S.D. 1999) (same principle that appellate jurisdiction must appear in the record)
- State v. Sharpfish, 933 N.W.2d 1 (S.D. 2019) (discusses scope of appellate jurisdiction statutes for criminal appeals)
- State v. Kaufman, 877 N.W.2d 590 (S.D. 2016) (no appellate jurisdiction where Legislature has not authorized appeal from particular post-conviction order)