Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Clark

Supreme Court of South Dakota

April 19, 2017

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN DANIEL CLARK, Defendant and Appellant.

          CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS MARCH 22, 2017

         APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT MINNEHAHA COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, THE HONORABLE BRADLEY G. ZELL Judge

          MARTY J. JACKLEY Attorney General

          PATRICIA ARCHER Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

          MARK KADI of Minnehaha County Public Advocate's Office Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant and appellant.

          OPINION

          ZINTER, Justice

         [¶1.] A previously convicted felon appeals the enhancement of his subsequent felony sentences for failing to comply with sex-offender-registration requirements.[1] The court enhanced the sentences under SDCL 22-7-7, South Dakota's general habitual offender statute. The court rejected the defendant's argument that sentences for the failure to register offenses in SDCL 22-24B-12 may be enhanced only under SDCL 22-24B-12.1, a statute applicable to repeated failures to register.[2] We affirm.

         Facts and Procedural History

          [¶2.] In 2009, Jonathan Clark was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse in Illinois. Upon moving to South Dakota, he registered as a sex offender as required in SDCL chapter 22-24B. On March 3, 2014, law enforcement discovered that Clark was living at a motel and not his registered address. On March 8, 2014, he reported to law enforcement that he was again living at his registered address, but he was actually living in other motels. As a result, he was indicted on two charges of violating SDCL 22-24B-12, which requires registered sex offenders to inform law enforcement of their new addresses within three business days of moving.[3]

         [¶3.] The failure to comply with a sex-offender-registration requirement in SDCL 22-24B-2, -5 to -8, and -12 is a class 6 felony. But a second or subsequent failure is a class 5 felony. SDCL 22-24B-12.1.[4] Although Clark's registration violations may have subjected him to an enhanced sentence as a repeat-registration violator under SDCL 22-24B-12.1, the State did not seek enhancement under that statute. Instead, the State filed a part II information (on both charges) alleging that Clark was a habitual offender under SDCL 22-7-7, [5] the general enhancement statute that applies to habitual offenders having any prior felony. The State alleged that Clark's current offenses were subject to sentence enhancement under SDCL 22-7-7 because of his 2009 felony conviction in Illinois.

         [¶4.] Clark pleaded guilty to the failure-to-register charges in both indictments. After a number of hearings not relevant to this appeal, the circuit court held a court trial on the part II informations. Although Clark admitted to the prior Illinois felony conviction, he moved to dismiss the part II informations. He argued that South Dakota's general habitual offender statute could not be used to enhance his sentence. The circuit court disagreed and imposed class 5 felony sentences.

         Decision

         [¶5.] Clark presents one argument on appeal. He argues that because SDCL 22-24B-12.1 is a specific enhancement statute relating to his principal offenses (the failures to register), that statute preempts the use of SDCL 22-7-7, the general habitual offender statute. He then argues that because the State did not request enhancement under SDCL 22-24B-12.1, the circuit court erred in failing to dismiss the part II informations. He contends that Carroll v. Solem, 424 N.W.2d 155 (S.D. 1988), supports his view. We disagree.

          [¶6.] In Carroll, the defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The State sought to enhance his sentence through two part II informations. The first information alleged that Carroll had two prior DUI convictions, which would enhance his sentence from a misdemeanor to a class 6 felony under SDCL 32-23-4, a statute that applied to repeat DUI offenders. The second information alleged that one of the prior DUIs was a felony, which would further enhance his sentence from a class 6 felony to a class 5 felony under SDCL 22-7-7, the general habitual offender statute. This Court held that the third offense DUI sentence could only be enhanced from a misdemeanor to a class 6 felony under SDCL 32-23-4. Id. at 157. We reasoned that further enhancing the sentence from a class 6 felony to a class 5 felony under SDCL 22-7-7 would result in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.