State v. Orr
2015 SD 89
| S.D. | 2015Background
- In 2013 Orr was convicted of driving under the influence and placed on probation.
- In Oct. 2014, after admitting to violating probation by meth use, the circuit court revoked probation and sentenced Orr to two years in prison (Sentence 1).
- In Oct. 2014, Orr received two additional sentences for unauthorized ingestion of meth (Sentence 2 and Sentence 3).
- Sentence 2: five years in penitentiary with the five-year term suspended to probation with conditions including 180 days in county jail; Sentence 2 runs concurrently with Sentences 1 and 3.
- Sentence 3: four years in penitentiary, ordered to run consecutively to Sentence 1; Sentence 3 runs after Sentence 1 while Sentence 2 runs concurrently.
- Orr appeals arguing the court improperly imposed sentences that subjected him to simultaneous supervision by the executive and judicial branches; the State contends SDCL 22-6-11 required probation on Sentence 2 and that the court lacked authority to impose other sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether simultaneous penitentiary and probation supervision violated separation of powers | Orr argues dual supervision is unconstitutional. | State asserts statutes and practices permit such sentencing as consistent with law. | Prohibited; cannot place defendant under simultaneous executive and judicial supervision. |
| Does SDCL 22-6-11 require probation on Sentence 2 despite penitentiary time | State claims mandatory probation on certain Class 5/6 felonies. | Orr contends the statute cannot override constitutional boundaries. | Statute yields to constitutional jurisdictional boundaries; probation cannot be imposed when penitentiary time is involved. |
| Did the court lack authority to impose sentences that created dual supervision | Orr asserts court overstepped boundries by creating mixed supervision. | State argues statute and precedent authorize some supervision arrangements. | Court exceeded authority; sentences must be remanded to align with constitutional separation of powers. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moon, 514 N.W.2d 705 (S.D. 1994) (separation of powers and jurisdiction in sentencing)
- State v. McConnell, 495 N.W.2d 658 (S.D. 1993) (jurisdictional boundaries between branches)
- State v. Wooley, 461 N.W.2d 117 (S.D. 1990) (probation and penitentiary supervision framework)
- State v. Huftile, 367 N.W.2d 193 (S.D. 1985) (probation supervision under judicial branch)
- State v. Anderson, 867 N.W.2d 718 (S.D. 2015) (departure from presumptive probation and modular sentencing)
- State v. Outka, 844 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 2014) (statutory construction in light of constitutional limits)
- State v. Stark, 802 N.W.2d 165 (S.D. 2011) (statutory interpretation and constitutional alignment)
- State v. Wilson, 618 N.W.2d 513 (S.D. 2000) (constitutional limits on sentencing and jurisdiction)
- Gray v. Gienapp, 727 N.W.2d 808 (S.D. 2007) (constitutional interpretation of statutes with separation of powers)