Legal Opinion · Dissent

Winters v. Solem

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 1989No. 16412Published

1DissentHenderson, Justice

We do not have before us an instance of a prisoner claiming he is entitled to parole. Having been granted parole, the prisoner is claiming that he is entitled to a hearing, because of its rescission.

SDCL 24-15-1.1 is a state law, cited by the majority. Said statute expresses that an application for parole cannot establish a constitutionally protected liberty, property or due process interest. Parole is grace bestowed upon a prisoner because of his good conduct. Statutes should not try to express what is and what is not constitutional. See, Vellinga v. Vellinga, 442 N.W.2d 472, 475-77…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Goodroad v. SolemSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State Ex Rel. Burns v. EricksonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1964
  4. In Re PrewittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Vellinga v. VellingaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API