) Euthanization order for vicious dogs upheld

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

 

1)    Euthanization order for vicious dogs upheld

 

Summary follows:

 

 CITY OF ONIDA v. BRANDT & MEYER, 2021 S.D. 27:  City sought to euthanize dogs (“two black, Labrador-mix dogs”) it deemed to be “vicious animals” under City Ordinance.  Trial court found that the city ordinance was inapplicable but authorized the Sully County Sheriff to euthanize the dogs under SDCL 7-12-29.  Dog owners appealed.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This ruling is unanimous with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

Drug offenses (Yankton); Contempt of Court (visitation rights); LWOP sentence upheld

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1. Multiples sentences for drug offenses affirmed;
2. Contempt of Court remedy, visitation rights; and
3. LWOP (Life without parole) sentence upheld for guilty plea as to aiding and abetting 1^st degree manslaughter.

 

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. SHELTON, 2021 S.D. 22: The facts and disposition in this criminal drug case from Yankton are described by the Court as follows:

 

[¶1.] Following a jury trial, Shawn Michael Shelton (Shelton) was convicted of three felony drug offenses in connection with the sale of methamphetamine to a confidential informant (CI). He appeals, alleging that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his motions to admit a written agreement with an informant and two demonstrative exhibits and for a new trial. He also contends that the sentence he received was cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.

 

This Defendant (who at the time of sentencing was an inmate in the penitentiary serving time on 4 prior Yankton County convictions) was sentenced:

 

[T]o serve fifteen years for the possession and distribution counts, to run concurrently to each other and to the sentences he was currently serving. For the offense of distribution in a drug free zone, the court sentenced Shelton to serve twenty-five years, with fifteen years suspended, to run consecutively to his other sentences.

 

The SD Supreme Court affirmed, stating:

 

[¶42.] Shelton is a habitual offender with six prior drug convictions. His sentence for three additional drug felonies, two of which the court permitted to run concurrently while suspending a portion of the third, is not grossly disproportionate to his crimes, or cruel and unusual.

 

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

 

METZGER v. METZGER, 2021 S.D. 23: This is a contempt proceeding with Father seeking relief related to Mother’s failure to comply with visitation provisions set forth in the Divorce Decree. In both the contempt proceeding and in the SD Supreme Court, mother proceeded pro se.  In the trial court, Mother “testified that her attorney never provided her with any documentation throughout the case.”   The trial court found for Mother on the basis of lack of knowledge of the terms of the Decree.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding, “The circuit court clearly erred when it found that [Mother] did not have knowledge of the contents of the judgment and decree of divorce.”  This opinion provides a nice review of the elements required for a contempt proceeding.  NOTE:  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.  Justice Myren was the trial judge in this case.  Former Chief Justice Gilbertson participated in the SD Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

STATE v. KLINETOBE, 2021 S.D. 24:  After pleading guilty to “aiding and abetting first-degree manslaughter,” Defendant was sentenced to LWOP (life without parole).  Defendant’s  appeal, premised upon the assertions of abuse of discretion and cruel and unusual punishment, is rejected with the SD Supreme Court affirming in a unanimous (5-0) ruling.  Opinion is authored by Justice Salter.  Circuit Judge Clark sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Kern. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

Vehicular Homicide & DUI Convictions Affirmed

 

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

 

1. Vehicular Homicide and DUI convictions upheld notwithstanding error in failure to sustain Motion to Suppress evidence

 

Summary follows:

 

 STATE v. ANGLE, 2021 S.D. 21:  Defendant was charged with Vehicular Homicide and DUI. Defendant waived jury trial, tried the case to the court and was found guilty.  The trial court sentenced Defendant, “to fifteen years in the penitentiary with credit for 350 days served and two years suspended upon certain conditions… [and] to 350 days in county jail for DUI-first offense conviction with credit for 350 days served.”  Defendant’s appeal focuses on the failure of the investigating officer to properly Mirandize her, asserting that the trial court should have sustained her Motion to Suppress and that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.  The SD Supreme Court agreed that that the trial court should have granted Defendant’s Motion to Suppress but, nonetheless, affirmed the convictions based upon “overwhelming evidence,” stating:

 

[¶29.] Although the circuit court erred by denying Angle’s suppression motion, Deputy Lanning’s failure to advise her that she had the right to appointed counsel before questioning her at the hospital was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence against her. The circuit court did not err when it denied Angle’s motion for acquittal, finding sufficient evidence to sustain her convictions for vehicular homicide and driving under the influence. We affirm.  

 

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

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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