Legal Opinion

Brant v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & Paroles

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 2012No. 26011PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice.

[T1] Stacy Brant challenges the partial revocation of his suspended sentence, alleging that he did not violate a condition and that he did not have fair warning that a violation may result in revocation of his suspended sentence. We affirm.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[12.] Brant pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary for an incident occurring at a home in Sisseton, South Dakota, on March 23, 2009. At the change of plea hearing and sentencing on October 1, 2009, the court ordered the following:

Well the Court has accepted the plea.... And at this time the Court would…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. AndersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Lykken v. ClassSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. GarberSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Smith v. Board of Pardons and ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Austad v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Reck v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Rowley v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Reck v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
  4. Rowley v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API