PIERRE - A Belle Fourche man convicted of vehicular manslaughter for a fatal crash is not entitled to a new trial, the South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled.

Oakley Bernard Engesser had argued that lawyers in his trial and a prior appeal made mistakes by failing to talk to two witnesses who later said he was not driving. The two gave testimony that indicated the woman who was killed in the crash was behind the wheel.

But the Supreme Court said Engesser will not get a new trial because his attorney in an earlier appeal was competent.

Engesser and Dorothy Finley, 59, of Rapid City, were going more than 100 mph when their Corvette crashed into the back of a van on Interstate 90 in western South Dakota in July 2000.

Finley, the registered owner of the car, died at the crash scene. Her body was found on the passenger side of the car, which overturned during the wreck. Engesser was thrown out and was found several feet from the driver's door.

Engesser, who suffered a head injury and could not recall the accident or who was driving, was charged with vehicular homicide because Finley died in the crash. He was charged with vehicular battery because two people in the van were injured.

He was convicted on those charges and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

The Supreme Court rejected Engesser's direct appeal in 2003, and a circuit judge rejected Engesser's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a secondary appeal that alleges constitutional violations. After the federal courts also ruled against Engesser, he went back to state court.

Circuit Judge Randall Macy of Deadwood ruled in 2007 that Engesser was denied a fair trial.

Macy ruled that Engesser had inadequate legal representation in his 2001 trial because his defense lawyer failed to interview witnesses Eric Eckholm and Charlotte Fowler, who were parked along the shoulder of I-90 when the crash occurred. The judge also said Engesser's lawyer in the first state habeas corpus petition erred by failing to talk with the two witnesses.

A South Dakota Highway Patrol trooper has testified that when Eckholm and Fowler were questioned after the accident, neither specified who was driving.

But in a hearing held by Macy, Eckholm said he could see a woman frantically steering the car during the crash. Fowler said she saw a woman driving a red Corvette earlier in the day.

The Supreme Court said even though a challenge in a subsequent habeas petition must eventually show an error in the original trial, the challenger must first show the lawyer in the first habeas petition was ineffective.

Engesser has failed to show that his lawyer in the first habeas appeal was ineffective, the high court said. Engesser's trial lawyer had told the appeal lawyer that Eckholm's testimony might hurt Engesser rather than help him because Eckholm's description of the driver's hair might fit Engesser, the justices noted.

Based on the entire record and totality of circumstances, the appeal lawyer's performance was within the range of normal professional competency, the Supreme Court said.