State v. Humpal, 2017 SD 82

In 2014 Humpal pleaded guilty to two controlled-substance offenses (Criminal File 13-2946); the court suspended execution and placed him on three years probation.
In 2016 Humpal admitted a probation violation; the court amended judgment and continued probation to begin on the date of amendment.
In October 2016 Humpal was charged with grand theft; he pleaded guilty in January 2017 under a plea agreement in which the State agreed not to file a probation violation in file 13-2946.
At sentencing for grand theft (March 7, 2017) the court imposed a five-year penitentiary term with three years suspended and ordered it to run concurrent with the sentence in file 13-2946.
Humpal argued the court lacked authority to impose a penitentiary sentence while he was on probation in a separate file because that would create dual supervision by the judicial and executive branches; the court later discharged Humpal from probation (March 9, 2017).
The State moved to dismiss as moot because Humpal was subsequently removed from probation; the Supreme Court retained the case to resolve the separation-of-powers issue for public importance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing a defendant to a penitentiary term while he is serving probation in a different file improperly places him under dual supervision of judicial and executive branches	State: Mootness — defendant was discharged from probation; no live controversy	Humpal: Court erred March 7 by imposing penitentiary sentence while on probation, violating separation of powers; resentencing required	Court: Issue initially moot due to discharge, but retained for public importance; March 7 sentence did improperly create dual supervision, but subsequent discharge eliminated the conflict and sentence stands
Whether SDCL 23A-27-18.4 authorized the court to run the new penitentiary sentence concurrent with the existing suspended/probationary sentence to avoid dual supervision	State: The court could rely on SDCL 23A-27-18.4 to make sentences concurrent and avoid dual supervision	Humpal: Statute does not authorize placing a currently probationary defendant under a new penitentiary sentence; concurrency cannot cure simultaneous supervision	Court: The statute does not apply to this factual posture (partially suspended concurrent sentence vs. entirely suspended sentence); ordering concurrency did not cure the constitutional problem, but the later probation discharge remedied it

State v. Orr, 871 N.W.2d 834 (S.D. 2015) (no circumstance permits simultaneous judicial and executive supervision)
State v. Oban, 372 N.W.2d 125 (S.D. 1985) (sentencing power derives from statute and constitution)
Cummings v. Mickelson, 495 N.W.2d 493 (S.D. 1993) (court discretion to retain moot cases for public importance)
In re Woodruff, 567 N.W.2d 226 (S.D. 1997) (mootness doctrine and when dismissal is appropriate)