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 (1st
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 .
