FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, May 14, 2026
Contact: Tony Mangan, Communications Director, 605-773-6878
PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley commends the South Dakota Supreme Court for ruling in favor of the State in State v. Pickner, confirming that a court cannot grant a suspended imposition of sentence after a conviction has already been entered and a defendant has served prison time.
“This ruling ensures that sentencing laws enacted by the State Legislature are applied consistently across the state,” said Attorney General Jackley. “It provides clarity for courts, prosecutors, and defendants about the limits of sentencing authority.”
The case arose after a circuit court attempted to vacate the conviction of defendant Wiley Pickner and grant a suspended imposition of sentence after Pickner had already been convicted of rape. He was subsequently sentenced to the State Penitentiary and later released on parole. The State challenged the order, arguing that South Dakota law does not allow a court to retroactively erase a conviction to impose a suspended imposition of sentence.
South Dakota’s Supreme Court agreed with the State and reversed the circuit court’s order. The Court held that South Dakota statutes allowing a court to reduce or suspend a sentence within a limited time do not authorize a court to vacate a judgment of conviction to impose a suspended imposition of sentence.
Under South Dakota law, a suspended imposition of sentence is a unique disposition that occurs before a judgment of conviction is entered. The Court determined that after a conviction has been entered and a prison sentence imposed, a court may reduce or suspend the sentence in certain circumstances, but it cannot eliminate the conviction itself to grant a suspended imposition.
The Attorney General’s Office represented the State in the appeal. The decision can be found here:
-30-
