West v. Dooley
2010 SD 102
| S.D. | 2010Background
- This is a South Dakota Supreme Court case, West v. Dooley, challenging DOC's calculation of time to serve on two consecutive 7½-year sentences.
- West, an old-system inmate, was entitled to good-conduct credit under SDCL 24-5-1 for the first ten years and thereafter.
- The Department calculated good-time credit separately for each sentence: 2½ years per 7½-year sentence, totaling 10 years to serve.
- West completed the first sentence in 2003 and began the second; the Department applied another 2½ years of credit to the second sentence.
- West argued for aggregation: add the two sentences to 15 years and apply the statute to the aggregate, yielding less total time to serve.
- The habeas court and the Supreme Court rejected aggregation, holding SDCL 24-5-1 lacks aggregation language and good time is calculated separately per sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 24-5-1 requires aggregation of consecutive sentences for good time. | West: aggregate total before applying good time. | Dooley: no aggregation language; calculate separately per sentence. | No aggregation; separate calculation per sentence. |
| Whether Anderson v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons supports aggregation for good time. | West relies on Anderson to aggregate and apply formula to total. | Department: Anderson addresses parole, not good time; supports separate calculations. | Anderson does not require aggregation for SDCL 24-5-1. |
| Does SDCL 24-5-1 contain explicit aggregation language for multiple sentences? | West argues language implies aggregation by reference to 'sentence' rather than 'sentences'. | Department: lack of aggregation language means no aggregation; statute controls. | No aggregation language; statute requires separate calculations. |
| Should the court interpret SDCL 24-5-1 to mimic parole aggregation under SDCL 24-15-7? | West cites broader context to argue for aggregation. | Department: 24-15-7 pertains to parole, not good time; not controlling here. | Not controlling; no legislative alignment for aggregation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 590 N.W.2d 915 (S.D. 1999) (good-time calculated per sentence; parole eligibility context)
- Grant v. Hunter, 166 F.2d 673 (10th Cir. 1948) (federal aggregation principle noted for good time)
- City of Deadwood v. Gustafson Family Trust, 777 N.W.2d 628 (S.D. 2010) (textual-interpretation principle: cannot add missing language)