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