75 year prison sentence upheld; types of challenge to sentencing explained

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

 

1)    75 year prison sentence upheld; types of challenge to sentencing explained

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. SEIDEL, 2020 S.D. 73:  Defendant was convicted by jury of several offenses (1^st degree kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault, and commission of a felony with a firearm) in connection with a brutal encounter with his estranged wife.   The trial court imposed a combination of consecutive and concurrent sentences which resulted in a total of 75 years in prison – the length of which Defendant asserted was tantamount to a life sentence.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting arguments related to the length of sentence and to closing arguments (restrictions on Defendant’s counsel and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the state’s argument).  Of significance for future reference, this opinion discusses how one may challenge the length of a sentence in South Dakota.  The opinion points out that both the Defendant and the State blurred the lines in regard to the applicable law.  In that regard, ¶43 of the opinion is instructional:

 

[¶43.]  There are generally two types of sentence challenges—an Eighth Amendment violation and an abuse of discretion. Although Richard characterizes his challenge to the circuit court’s sentence as an Eighth Amendment claim and quotes our law governing proportionately review, his arguments only dispute the appropriateness of the court’s particular sentence based on the facts of this case and Richard’s unique characteristics. The State’s brief likewise seems to conflate the two types of sentence challenges.  The State first identifies our law governing proportionality review, but then—within that constitutional analysis—quotes language from State v. Bonner, 1998 S.D. 30, ¶ 19, 577 N.W.2d 575, 580, setting forth what a court is to consider in exercising its discretion when imposing a sentence. Because Richard characterized his sentencing challenge as an Eighth Amendment claim, we address that claim first, although we also review the sentence for an abuse of discretion.  

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

Day County permitted to tax non-Indians on Indian Trust land

 

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

 

1)    Day County permitted to tax non-Indians on Indian Trust land

 

Summary follows:

 

PICKEREL LAKE et. al. v. DAY COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, 2020 S.D. 72:  This dispute involves a challenge to taxes assessed by Day County, involving the issue of whether federal law concerning Indian land preempts the ability of the County to tax.  The dispute and the results in the lower court and in the SD Supreme Court are described in the 1^st paragraph of the Court’s opinion:

 

[¶1.] The Pickerel Lake Outlet Association, a South Dakota domestic nonprofit corporation, and forty non-Indian owners of permanent improvements around Pickerel Lake (the Plaintiffs) filed a declaratory judgment action in circuit court challenging ad valorem property taxes that Day County assessed against them. They claimed that federal law preempted taxation because their structures are on land held in trust for the Sisseton–Wahpeton Oyate. The State defended the taxes and challenged the Plaintiffs’ standing to sue. The circuit court concluded the Plaintiffs had standing and upheld the disputed taxes. The Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

 

This opinion runs 21 pages, with the Court ultimately concluding in ¶36:

 

The Plaintiffs have satisfied all the prerequisites for standing.  Further, the County is neither explicitly nor implicitly preempted by the provisions of [25 U.S.C.] § 5108 from assessing ad valorem taxes against the Plaintiffs. 

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

Multiple Assault Convictions Affirmed

 

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

 

1. Multiple Assault Convictions Affirmed

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. BABCOCK, 2020 S.D. 71:  This criminal case, venued in Butte County, is summarized in the 1^st paragraph of the Court’s opinion:

 

[¶1.] A jury convicted Kevin Babcock of two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of simple assault for attacking his former significant other, Rosa Sosa, during a fight. Babcock appeals, alleging the circuit court erred by granting the State’s motion to exclude evidence of Sosa’s drug use. He also argues that his convictions for multiple counts of assault placed him in double jeopardy in violation of his constitutional rights.

 

The trial court sentenced the Defendant to 10 years (with 3 suspended) on each felony count, with sentences to run consecutively and 250 days in jail (with credit for time served) on the assault convictions, with the jail sentences to run concurrently with each other and with the felony sentences.  

 

The SD Supreme Court affirmed (5-0).  The decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  This case was submitted on the briefs over a year ago, on November 4, 2019.

   

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

Three decisions Today by SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1. 1^st degree murder conviction in court-tried case affirmed;
2. Med mal discovery as to “other patient records” reversed in, in 4-1 ruling;
3. Resolution of issues regarding work comp insurer’s ability to enforce subrogation lien against itself and for “like damages.” (3-1-1 ruling)

 

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. QUINONES RODRIGUEZ, 2020 S.D. 68:  Waiving a right to jury trial, this Defendant was convicted by the trial court in Day County and sentenced as follows:

 

The court found Rodriguez guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, arson, commission of a felony while armed with a firearm, and aggravated assault. It sentenced him to life in prison for first-degree murder, twenty-five years for arson, twenty-five years for commission of a felony while armed with a firearm, and fifteen years for aggravated assault, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The court did not impose a sentence for the second-degree murder conviction.

 

The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) decision, with opinion authored by Justice Kern. 

 

FERGUSON v. THAEMERT, 2020 S.D. 69:  In this medical malpractice case, the trial court ordered production of redacted documents related to other patients.  Here, the SD Supreme Court permitted an intermediate appeal and reversed the trial court, holding that the documents were not discoverable because the basis of the Plaintiff’s theory is one of a failure of informed consent.  The Court’s decision is a 4-1 ruling, with opinion by Chief Justice Gilbertson.  Justice Kern dissented, stating her belief that the “information [sought] was—at a minimum—reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  

 

Retired Justice Severson sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Salter.

 

LUZE v. NEW FB CO., 2020 S.D. 70:  This is a work comp case involving the death of an employee.  The dispute presented here relates to the ability of the work comp insurer to satisfy a subrogation lien against the proceeds recovered on a wrongful death claim and proceeds paid by the deceased’s UIM insurer to the estate of the deceased.  It must be noted that the UIM insurer (Zurich) in this case is also the UIM insurer.  The issues presented in this appeal are summarized in ¶ 1 of the opinion summarizes the issues presented in this appeal:

 

[¶1.] Charles Luze was killed in a motor vehicle accident at work, after which his employer paid his wife, Jeanette Luze, workers’ compensation benefits. Jeanette, as the personal representative of Charles’s estate, brought suit against the negligent driver and ultimately settled the claim. The estate also settled a claim against Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), the employer’s insurer providing underinsured motorist coverage. Zurich is also the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier. This appeal concerns the circuit court’s determination that Zurich is entitled to a statutory workers’ compensation lien on 50% of the settlement proceeds received by the estate and that Zurich is able to subrogate against its own settlement payment of underinsured motorist benefits. We remand on issue one and affirm on issue two.

 

The Court’s decision is a 3-1-1 ruling, with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.  Justices Jensen and Salter both dissent on issue # 1 (the “like damages” determination), with each filing separate opinions.  Justice Salter concurs in Justice Jensen’s views concerning issue #1, but also addresses his separate view as to why issue # 2 should be affirmed. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

Exigent Circumstances Justify Warrantless Blood Draw

 

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

 

1)    Warrantless Blood Draw Upheld on basis of Exigent Circumstances

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. VORTHERMS, 2020 S.D. 67:  Defendant was convicted by jury of vehicular homicide (2 counts), vehicular battery and DUI.  The trial court sentenced Defendant to 30 years in prison (with 5 suspended) for manslaughter, 10 years suspended for battery and a suspended jail sentence for DUI.  Two issues are presented in this appeal: 1) the admissibility of blood alcohol results from a “warrantless” blood draw; and 2) ineffective assistance of counsel.  The SD Supreme Court rejected both issues, holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw and that Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not reviewable on direct appeal.   This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Jensen. 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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