Brant v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & Paroles
South Dakota Supreme Court
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
- State v. AndersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
- Lykken v. ClassSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. GarberSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- Smith v. Board of Pardons and ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
- 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
- Reck v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
- Rowley v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- Reck v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
- Rowley v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & ParolesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013