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.

Rindahl v. Young

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division

January 9, 2020

RANDY LEE RINDAHL, Petitioner,
v.
DARIN YOUNG, Respondent.

          ORDER

          JEFFBEY L. VIKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner Randy Rindahl filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("2254 Petition"). (Docket 1). Respondent Darin Young filed .a motion to dismiss petitioner's 2254 Petition. (Docket 11). Pursuant to a standing order of April 1, 2018, the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Daneta Wollmann pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for a report and recommendation ("R&R"). The magistrate judge recommended the court dismiss with prejudice petitioner's 2254 Petition as untimely. (Docket 15 at p. 9). Mr. Rindahl timely filed objections to the R&R. (Docket 16). For the reasons set forth below, the court overrules Mr. Rindahl's objections and adopts the R&R.

         ANALYSIS

         The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R which are the subject of objections. Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357-58 (8th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court may then "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         Mr. Rindahl asserts four objections to the R&R. Those are summarized as follows:

1. The state court did not have the statutory authority to enter into a plea agreement in his criminal case;
2. The State of South Dakota lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Rindahl;
3. The state court imposed an illegal sentence; and 4. The state court improperly rejected Mr. Rindahl's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

         Petitioner's objections will be separately addressed.

         Mr. Rindahl did not object to the factual findings made by the magistrate judge. The court adopts the factual findings stated in the R&R. A short summary of those facts is presented here to put Mr. Rindahl's objections into perspective.

         On December 16, 1988, Mr. Rindahl entered into a plea agreement with the Pennington County States Attorney and he entered a plea of guilty to Count II, First Degree Manslaughter, and Count III, Aggravated Assault. (Docket 15 at p. 1) (referencing Dockets 13-1 and 13-2). On January 16, 1989, Mr. Rindahl was sentenced by the Circuit Court Judge John K. Konenkamp of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, to serve 75 years on Count I and 15 years on Count II in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. Id. at pp. 1-2 (referencing Dockets 13-1 and 13-2). Judge Konenkamp ordered the sentence to be served consecutively. Id. at p. 2 (referencing Docket 13-2).

         Mr. Rindahl filed a motion for modification of the sentence on February 14, 1989. Id. at p. 2 (referencing Docket 13-3). On February 16, 1989, the court denied the motion. Id., (referencing Docket 13-4). On October 25, 1989, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Id. (referencing State v. Rindahl, 449 N.W.2d 844 (S.D. 1989)).

         On January 25, 2012, Mr. Rindahl filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court. Id. (referencing Dockets 13-5 and 13-6). On February 8, 2012, a different state court judge dismissed the petition with prejudice. Id. (referencing Docket 13-7). Based on the 22-year delay, the state judge denied a certificate of probable cause pursuant to S.D.C.L. § 21-27-18.1. (Docket 13-7). On August 14, 2018, Mr. Rindahl filed a second state petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id. (referencing Docket 13-8). The second petition was returned by the state court on August 24, 2018, ...


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.