Consecutive Sentencing Upheld in Criminal Conviction Appeals

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning, holding, inter alia:

 

1. Consecutive sentencing for drug offenses upheld;

 

2. Consecutive sentence for 3^rd degree rape upheld

 

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. STEVENS, 2024 S.D. 3: Defendant was convicted, by jury, of drug offenses and sentenced to 1 year, 5 years and 10 years, to run consecutively.  The state’s primary witness was Defendant’s “former roommate and fellow methamphetamine user, testified for the State in exchange for immunity.” Defendant’s appeal is premised upon “the circuit [court’s failure to] give corroboration or cautionary accomplice jury instructions” in regard to the roommate’s testimony and the assertion of ineffective assistance counsel in regard to his trial counsel’s “for failing to propose accomplice testimony instructions.”  Since the 1^st issue was not preserved for appeal at trial, this appeal is addressed under the plain error standard of review.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, holding that trial counsel’s effective cross-examination of the roommate foreclosed the issue of “prejudice” need for reversal on the basis of plain error. The holding in regard to lack of prejudice further dictates a rejection of the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel  assertion.  The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.  Justice Salter filed a concurring opinion in which he opined , “I do not believe that absence of a corroboration instruction should be categorically regarded as error, plain or otherwise.”  NOTE: the rule that the testimony of an accomplice requires corroborating evidence is found in SDCL 23A-22-8 which is cited and discussed in both opinions.

 

STATE v. HORSE, 2024 S.D. 4: Defendant was convicted, by jury, of 3^rd degree rape and was sentenced, “to serve twenty years in the penitentiary, consecutive to a sentence he was already serving.” Defendant’s appeal raises three (3), “issues involving the validity of a search warrant for location data from his phone, comments made during trial by the State about the victim’s motivation to testify, and opinion testimony given by the detective who investigated the case.”  The SD Supreme Court rejected all three issues and affirmed the lower court. This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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