Legal Opinion · Dissent
Brim v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & Paroles
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided April 30, 1997No. NonePublished
1DissentSabers, Justice
[¶ 27.] I dissent. I can not agree with the majority’s conclusion that there has been no parole eligibility for life prisoners since 1913. Accordingly, I would reach the issues of whether the 1978 statutory amendment violated ex post facto constitutional provisions and whether Brim waived his right to have a parole eligibility date set.
[¶ 28.] 1. STATE LAW REQUIRED THAT A PAROLEE ELIGIBILITY DATE BE SET FOR BRIM AT THE TIME OF HIS 1958 SENTENCE TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
[¶ 29.] In 1978, the Legislature enacted SDCL 24-15^1, which provides: “A person sentenced to life imprisonment is not eligible…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Board of Pardons v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Petition of Famous Brands, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
- John J. Rodriguez v. United States Parole Commission and Metropolitan Correctional Center, Robert Elsea, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979
- Isaac v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.