The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Ruling on unemployment benefits remanded to ALJ for
more adequate findings;
- Mandatory 10 year sentence upheld;
Summaries
follows:
BANKSTON
v NEW ANGUS LLC, 2023 S.D. 27:
Seventy-four (74) year old employee was fired because of alleged sexual
harassment of co-employee. His claim for
“reemployment assistance benefits” filed with South Dakota’s Dept. of Labor
was denied by the ALJ on the basis that the employee’s conduct was work-related
misconduct as per SDCL 61-6-14.1. The
Circuit Court reversed. The SD Supreme
Court reversed and remanded with directions that “ALJ
utilize the existing record to issue a new proposed decision that contains
sufficient factual findings to enable meaningful appellate review.” The Court stated:
[¶23.] This Court faces the same
appellate review dilemma as the circuit court. First, there are no factual
findings about the alleged verbal and physical sexual conduct that New Angus
asserted as grounds for discharging Bankston. Second, “[w]ithout findings of
fact, there is no way to determine the basis for the [circuit] court’s
conclusions . . . or whether [any] findings were clearly erroneous.” Id.
(alterations and omission in original). Because the ALJ failed to enter
findings on the alleged sexual conduct and words, we cannot conduct a
meaningful appellate review. See Ridley v. Lawrence Cnty. Comm’n, 2000
S.D. 143, ¶ 13, 619 N.W.2d 254, 259 (“Without findings of fact and conclusions
of law on this issue, meaningful appellate review is compromised.”); State
Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Eastman, 273 N.W.2d 159, 161 (S.D. 1978) (“The
court cannot ‘affirm, modify or reverse the findings and conclusions entered by
the agency’ when there are none.”) (footnote omitted) (quoting SDCL 1-26-36).
The ALJ was better positioned to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and
additional findings would allow a thorough and meaningful appellate review.
This
decision is unanimous (4-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren. Justice
Salter did not participate.
STATE
v HIRNING, 2023 S.D. 28: Following his
guilty plea, Defendant was sentenced to mandatory 10 years as a 2nd
time offender for possession of Meth with intent to distribute. On appeal, Defendant asserts that the trial
court did not appropriately apply SDCL 22-42-2.5 which permits deviation from
the mandatory sentence, asserting that he was qualified under all 6 provisions
of SDCL 22-42-2.5. The trial court had
indicated that Defendant failed to satisfy SDCL 22-42-2.5 (5) (cooperation with
law enforcement through identification of the source of Meth). Defendant further asserts ineffective
assistance of counsel in regard to the overall failure of the Defense to
provide the identity of the source of the Meth.
The SD Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s sentence and declined to
entertain the “ineffective assistance of counsel” claim on direct appeal. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with the
opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
These
decisions may be accessed at
