Three new decisions by the SD Supreme Court today

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

1)    Public Duty rule prohibits suit against City of Sioux Falls;

2)   Denial of Motion to Suppress upheld (Sturgis Rally Conviction);

3)   Dispute over tenancy in common/joint tenancy issue following death of wife.

Summaries follows:

FODNESS v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, 2020 S.D. 43:  Personal injury victim sustained injuries when her apartment collapsed as a result of a contractor’s work.  This action was filed against the City of Sioux Falls, asserting negligence in the issuance of a building permit for the contractor.  The trial court dismissed the action on the basis of the public duty rule.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, observing that the, “complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to establish... the special duty exception to the public duty rule” as recognized in Tipton v. Town of Tabor (Tipton I), 538 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 1995).  This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  Circuit Judge Means sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Salter.

STATE v. WILLIAMS, 2020 S.D. 44:  Defendant was convicted of various offenses arising out of an arrest around 2:00 A.M. made during the 2018 Sturgis Rally.  Officers detained the Defendant after observing what appeared to be a drawn weapon with a red laser light pointed at the Oasis Bar.  The trial court suspended imposition of sentence on the offenses and placed Defendant on unsupervised probation for one year.   Defendant appeals the denial of his Motion to Suppress.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Kern. 

MOECKLY v. HANSON, 2020 S.D. 45: This proceeding is summarized in ¶ 1 of the Court’s opinion as follows:

Personal representatives for the estate of Sharon Orr-Hanson brought a partition action for property owned by Sharon and her husband, Bennet Hanson. The circuit court held the property was owned as tenants in common and ordered partition. Hanson appeals, arguing the property was held as joint tenants and should go to him alone as the surviving joint tenant. We affirm.

The Court’s decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Gilbertson. 

These decisions may be accessed at

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

One Decision from SD Supreme Court today

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:  

1)    90 year sentence imposed upon 17 year old defendant affirmed

Summary follows:

STATE v. QUEVEDO, 2020 S.D. 42:  The trial court’s sentence, imposed after a guilty plea to 2^nd degree murder is upheld notwithstanding the young age of the Defendant at the time of the offense.  The trial court’s action and the SD Supreme Court’s ruling is summarily stated in ¶¶ 1 & 42 as follows:

[¶1] Carlos Quevedo pled guilty to second-degree murder in the stabbing death of Kasie Lord. He was 17 years old when he committed the crime. The circuit court sentenced him to 90 years in prison, making him eligible for parole at age 62. Quevedo appeals, claiming his sentence is unconstitutional because it violates categorical limitations placed upon sentences for juveniles and because it is disproportionately harsh. We affirm.   

[¶42] Quevedo’s 90-year discretionary sentence does not offend the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, either as a categorically prohibited mandatory life sentence or as a sentence that is disproportionate to the offense. We affirm.   

The Court’s decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

   

This decision may be accessed at

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .   

SD Supreme Court hands down 2 decisions, July 16

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning, holding inter alia:  

1)    Alimony dispute resolved;

2)   Direct appeal from 2015 conviction permitted and resolved, as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Summaries follow:

LEEDOM v. LEEDOM, 2020 S.D. 40:  This is a dispute over the impact of H’s attaining the age of eligibility for social security in connection with his court-ordered alimony -- a contingency referenced in the original memorandum divorce opinion.  The holding of the trial court and the corresponding affirmance on appeal is summarized in ¶ 1 of the Court’s opinion as follows:

David and Cindy Leedom divorced in 2004. The divorce court ordered David to pay Cindy monthly alimony in the amount of $3,000. David stopped paying alimony in January 2017, after reaching the age of social security eligibility. Cindy filed a motion to restore alimony in the circuit court (modification court) alleging that David was obligated to pay lifetime alimony of $3,000 per month. The modification court held David’s obligation to pay alimony was continuing. The court also determined that he owed accrued alimony from the time he stopped paying until the time of the modification hearing, which totaled $87,000. The court then reduced David’s monthly alimony obligation to $1,750 beginning on June 1, 2019. David appeals. We affirm. 

The Court’s decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Jensen. 

STATE v. WILSON, 2020 S.D. 41:  The facts generating this criminal prosecution occurred in March, 2014.  Defendant was tried by jury and convicted in 2015, but encountered difficultly with counsel as follows: 

Wilson’s legal representation through the Minnehaha County Public Defender’s Office was reassigned three times before trial. The court reset the case with each reassignment. The first reassignment occurred due to disagreements between Wilson and his counsel. The second reassignment occurred when his attorney left the office for another job. Wilson’s third lawyer from the Public Defender’s Office was assigned approximately one month before trial. None of Wilson’s attorneys filed any substantive pretrial motions or motions in limine. 

No appeal was taken, but Defendant brought a habeas corpus action 2 years later asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, with the result being that the, “habeas court granted relief by reentering the judgment and sentence on September 11, 2018, allowing Wilson to file a timely direct appeal.”  This decision resolves that appeal, with the resolution summarized in ¶ 1 of the opinion as follows:

A jury found Deondre Wilson guilty of aggravated assault (domestic), simple assault (domestic), interference with emergency communications, and disorderly conduct. He appeals, claiming the existence of plain error through the admission of certain evidence and the prosecutor’s closing argument. Wilson directs an additional challenge to his assault convictions, arguing that their domestic designation reflects an essential element that was not proven at trial. Finally, Wilson contends the court utilized an improper procedure for a stipulated postjudgment sentence correction. We affirm and remand with instructions to remove the domestic designation from the aggravated and simple assault convictions and the accompanying obligation to pay two $25 statutory domestic violence fees.

This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.    

 

These decisions may be accessed at

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .