Home > 2015 SD Legislative Session > SD 2015 Legislature: Two bills to be addressed by the Senate Judiciary committee on Jan 20

SD 2015 Legislature: Two bills to be addressed by the Senate Judiciary committee on Jan 20

January 17, 2015

coltOn Tuesday, January 20th, at 8:30am the Senate Judiciary legislative committee will take up two bills. Before taking up the bills there has been time allotted from 8:00am to 8:30am for SD Attorney General Marty Jackley to give an agency overview. Both bills being taken up by the Judiciary committee were submitted at the request of the AG’s office. Here are the two bills being looked at by the Senate Judiciary committee:

SB 12 – Allow the spouse of an active duty military person to qualify as a resident for a temporary permit to carry a concealed pistol.

This bill is very simple. Current laws states that active duty military personal with a home record in South Dakota can get a temporary permit to carry a concealed pistol; which must be issued within five days. This bill would extend that same right to the spouse. If I read the bill correctly, it would also appear the spouse must have a home record in South Dakota to receive this temporary permit. I don’t see anyone having problems with extending the right of an active duty service-person to their spouse. Theoretically this will probably be one of the least controversial of gun-related bills that will come up.

SB 15 – allow for discretionary appeals of illegal sentences.

This bill will add an additional section to the portion of codified law dealing with Appeals to the Supreme Court (§ 23A-32). Here is the section to be added:

An appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken by the state or the defendant from an order granting or denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence or an order granting or denying a motion to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner. An appeal under this section is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. An appeal from an illegal sentence shall be taken in the same manner as an intermediate appeal pursuant to subdivision 15-26A-3(6).

This is one I will wait and listen to the proponent testimony before commenting on. I am interested to hear what Jackley has to say and why “may” instead of “shall” was used. This would appear to be a case where an appeal would be warranted.

%d bloggers like this: