The
SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
- Multiples sentences for drug offenses affirmed;
- Contempt of Court remedy,
visitation rights; and
- LWOP (Life without parole)
sentence upheld for guilty plea as to aiding and abetting 1st
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
