Prison sentence reversed for non-compliance with presumptive probation statute

 

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

 

1. Prison sentence reversed for non-compliance with presumptive probation statute

 

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. SCOTT, 2024 S.D. 27:  The trial court’s prison sentence (of 4 years) is reversed because of non-compliance with the presumptive probation statute.  In rendering sentence, the trial court, “underscored [Defendant’s] extensive criminal history which extended throughout his adult life and encompassed dangerous offenses that jeopardized his well-being and community safety.”  Nonetheless, the trial court failed to articulate the language required under SDCL 22-6-11.  Relevant portions of the Court’s opinion are set forth here:

 

[¶31.] We have recently held that a defendant must object to a circuit court’s failure to comply with the presumptive sentencing provisions of the statute. State v. Feucht, 2024 S.D. 16, ¶ 24, __ N.W.3d __. In the absence of such an objection, we held that the error was forfeited and subject to review under the plain error doctrine. …

 

[¶32.] In this case, [Defendant] did not preserve his SDCL 22-6-11 claim, but because his sentencing occurred before our decision in Feucht, [Defendant’s] argument is not subject to plain error review. …

 

[¶33.] Under SDCL 22-6-11, a circuit court is required to sentence criminal defendants convicted of a Class 5 felony “to a term of probation” or “a fully suspended penitentiary sentence[.]” …

 

[¶34.] … And though the court elected to not impose a fully suspended prison sentence, it did not specifically identify aggravating factors on the record to justify a departure, and it did not list any aggravating factors in the judgment of conviction. Consequently, there was no compliance with the statute, which constitutes error.

 

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

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

Double Life Sentence upheld

 

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

 

1. Double life sentence upheld, following guilty pleas

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. LANPHER, JR., 2024 S.D. 26: This situation in this case is succinctly described in the opening paragraph of the opinion:

 

[¶1.] James Joseph Lanpher, Jr. pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer and admitted to a part II habitual offender information. The charges arose out of an extremely dangerous high-speed chase during which Lanpher repeatedly fired weapons at pursuing officers. The circuit court sentenced Lanpher to serve two concurrent life sentences to run consecutively to sentences he was already serving for other offenses. Lanpher appeals, claiming his sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment and was an abuse of the circuit court’s discretion. We affirm.

 

This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

SD Hospital denied reimbursement for medical services rendered to Mexican National patient

 

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

 

1. Reimbursement denied to SD Hospital for medical serviced rendered to Mexican National patient

 

 

Summary follows:

 

AVERA ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL v. SULLY COUNTY, 2024 S.D. 25:  While working in Sully County, Mexican national “suffered appendicitis and required emergency medical services,” and was transported to Avera Hospital in Hughes County for medical care.  After incurring medical bills exceeding $75,000, patient was discharged and returned to Mexico without paying.  Avera sought relief from Sully County, arguing it was so obliged to pay under “South Dakota’s poor-relief statutes.”  In particular, the County would be required to reimburse Avera under SDCL 28-13-37 which requires payment by County for "any person not an inhabitant of their county is lying sick therein or in distress, without friends or money.”  The County denied reimbursement.  Both the trial court and the SD Supreme Court affirmed denial of reimbursement, with the SD Supreme Court stating:

 

Sully County had no chance to investigate whether [the Mexican national patient] was “lying sick” in its county or “in distress,” [prior to transportation to Avera Hospital in Hughes County].

 

The Court’s decision was unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.  NOTE:  in addition to ruling against Avera Hospital, the SD Supreme Court also rejected arguments presented in the Amicus Curiae Brief of the South Dakota Association of Healthcare Organizations, filed in support of Appellant Avera Hospital. 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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