*1 (8thCir.l996) (unрublished opinion). procedural on the properly denied terial or Therefore, did not abuse the matter should be remanded the circuit court mеrits and freely allow BNRR to amend its com- discretion. plaint in accordance with the well-estab- Therefore, circuit we affirm the to allow same in рrecedent lished this in all cases. respects in all state. Justice, and- GILBERTSON, KONENKAMP AMUNDSON, concurs part. and dissents
AMUNDSON, dissenting part). Dakota, Plaintiff STATE of South originally circuit court to amend its com- BNRR’s motion
granted recover a re- potentially it could plaint so its 1994 taxes. for the first half of fund Marjorie OLSON-LAME, Defendant then reversed field The court explana- amend without BNRR’s motion to rule is that a motion to general tion. and a circuit court freely granted amend is Dakota. Supremе Court preju- it will somehow do so unless
should See 15—6— party. the adverse dice Briefs March Considered on Publications, 15(a); v. Ravellette Kjerstad (S.D.1994). Inc., trial evidence of the [¶ 34.] Without mo denying rationale for BNRR’s
tion, however, Court cannot conduct this e.g., review. See
meaningful appellate
Watson-Wojewski Wojewski, 666; Meyer, Michlitsch 731;
W.Y.B., On record, Fall cannot review whether
this we if prejudiced have been
River would plead amend its
BNRR was allowed to we review whether
ings. Nor can time- sought by BNRR is portion
amended any articulation from
barred. Without deny why court as to it decided amend, simply can
BNRR’s motion to job. Eighth
not do our As stated Appeals, cannot “[w]e Court of
Circuit court’s ex
meaningfully review district discretion, however, absent
ercise ex full statement of reasons
benefit of a why the district court denied
plaining Freight Nat. Indus
motion.” Teamsters MME, Inc., 104 F.3d Neg.
try Comm. *2 the waiver of the
Basically, that with will be hearing, Miss Lame preliminary possession charge, the pleading guilty to a vehicle possession the stolen motor аddition, responsi- In she’d be charge. and ble for all costs of by the Court. In restitution ordered that, be the State would exchange and dismissing grand two counts of theft filе a two habitual agree not to information; and at the time of the sen- would recommend a tencing the State Dakota cap years of threе General, Barnett, Attorney Grant Mark Penitentiary, (emphasis Attorney Gormley, General Assistant agreed this was her 4.] Olson-Lame [¶ Pierre, appellee. and рlaintiff understanding plea agreement and plead guilty charge went forward to to the City, Kelley, Rapid K. for defen- Nora The trial plea bargain. outlinеd in the appellant. and court later sentenced Olson-Lame to three in the with credit for years penitentiary GILBERTSON, Justice plus twenty-two court costs оf time served Marjorie appeals Olson-Lame [¶ 1.] dollars, surcharge crime victim’s of two of a and provision the restitution cents, fifty automa- dollars tо reimburse Pen- requiring sentence her surcharge twenty-five tion dollars and County for extradition costs. We nington cents, fifty attorney’s fees of $375 affirm. County Pennington reimbursement $1,175 extradition costs. Olson-Lame FACTS appeals. was arrested on Oc- Olson-Lame ISSUE Falls for numerous tober 1998 Sioux of a motor Did the trial court err ordеr- charges including possession ing Pennington Olson-Lame extradition costs vehicle was stolen County? Pennington fled the state after as restitution to County. Olson-Lamе fugitive a until her arrest and remained Citing prior several deci when was arrested in Ra- March 2000 Court, argues sions of this Olson-Lame leigh, North Olson-Lame re- Carolinа. ordering that the trial court erred in her fused to waive extradition to South Dakota extradition costs as restitution to and, pursuant to an with Pen- Pennington County Mar- nington County, the United State’s her was not a “victim” of crime that was her with a shals’ Service served statutorily entitled to restitution. Olson- May Governor’s Warrant objeсt Lame failed to to the reimburse transported The Service also Olson- ment award the trial court and before County Pennington Lame back to explicitly agreed plea to the terms of the $1,175 charged for its services. bargain requiring her to all costs of restitution or [¶ 3.] Olson-Lame and County Attorney eventuаlly Generally, dered. this Court will not ad State’s raised for the first time on plea bargain concerning reached dress issues and, to the trial court. Pennington County charges during appeal presented ¶7, 13, arraignment, explained Henjum, her counsel the See State v. bargain as follows: the extent that Notwithstanding To Olsоn- the foregoing conclusion, jurisdictional,1 argument
Lame’s we hold that the agree we do with her contention award of extradition costs to Pennington imрroper for the trial court to award was appropriate was as an award of Penning restitution to extradition costs as "costs of the under SDCL 23A- рrovides 23A-28-1 ton 27-26:2 *3 policy
that it is the
of the State
resti
actions,
In all criminal
upon conviction
“victims” of criminal
tution be made to the
defendant,
may adjudge
the court
in
activities. As set forth
State v.
pay
any
defendant
the whole or
.that
—¶50, 10,
-, --,
2001 SD
N.W.2d
part
particular prose-
of the costs of that
392660, another case where a
2001 WL
cution in addition to
liquidated
costs
county was awarded the costs of extradi
However,
§
provided by
23-3-52.
of a criminal sentence:
tion as
govern-
itеms of
22-1-2(53)
“any
defines victim
SDCL
as
mental
bail-
person against
natural
whom the defen-
iffs
spe-
of
in
prosecution
dant
criminal
has com-
a.
cial
and repоrter’s per diem.
attempted
mitted or
to commit a
Payment
may
of costs
be enforced as a
case, County
In this
not a
crime[.]”
is
judgment
civil
against the defendant.
definition,
except
victim under this
¶ 15,
explained Ryyth,
As
—
at
restitution). result. “ power uphold
1. Jurisdiction
a court to
'We will
of the trial
includes
”
penalty
set a
and cannot be conferred
right
court if it is
reason.’
agreement,
- N.W.2d at -,
¶ 11,
consent or waiver. See State v.
at
these this is simple, The reason for agreed as costs
consented plea bargain with
part of her needless-
the State.
ly erroneously proceeds hold are recoverable nonetheless as
these costs 23A-27- Dakota, STATE of Plaintiff improрerly bases same on *4 Ryyth. v. State . many No how from matter cases Ryyth pa- foreign State GONZALEZ, David Defendant it cannot authority, justify rades as interpretation a clear errant statute en- Legislature. by
acted the South Dakota a statute of SDCL 23A-27-36 is exclusion. Supreme Court of South Dakota. It “the relevant pаrt states costs shall Argued Oct. governmental include items bailiffs special expenses report- (emphasis diem.” per er’s statement
governmental expense by followed a list clearly
prefaced by “such as” is demons- costs, not prohibited
trative of included erro- instead
neously views that list as all-inclusive. clearly
Extradition are “salaries and special agents.” Whatever plain meaning?
happened What is the real difference be- specifically
tween the excluded items and I
costs of extradition? None. submit this
question has not been answered
majority opinion, only authority and if the holding opinion’s is State will. Ryyth, seems it never Interest-
ingly, if it were not for the found new incorrectly
rationale based majority opinion’s all of the cita- to the cases decided the resti-
tions contrary
tution statute are to its holding Perhaps
here. this is notice Legislature plain meaning plain meaning
does not mean any more. For the reasons stated herein my dissent I concur