The SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning:
1) Termination of parental rights
to Indian Children upheld;
2) Multiple convictions and
sentences upheld;
3) inmate prevails on ineffective
assistance of counsel claim in writ of habeas corpus proceeding, by 3-2 ruling.
Summaries follows:
INTEREST OF N.K., JR. AND S.K., 2024 S.D. 63: The trial court terminated
the parental rights of Mother and Father, in regard to Indian Children. Father appeals, asserting: 1) defect in service of process; 2) failure to
establish termination as “the least restrictive alternative”; and
3) non-compliance with ICWA. The SD Supreme
Court rejects all of Father’s arguments and affirms the trial court. This is unanimous decision (5-0), with opinion
authored by Justice Kern.
STATE v. WASHINGTON, 2024 S.D. 64: Defendant was indicted and convicted
on multiple counts, “including first-degree kidnapping, injury to personal property,
and multiple counts of aggravated and simple assault.” The trial court imposed numerous sentences, with
several running consecutively. Defendant
appeals asserting the following errors: “his trial counsel was ineffective, insufficient
evidence to support the kidnapping conviction, improper convict[ion] on two
counts of aggravated assault, [and non-conformity between] the circuit court’s
written sentence [and] its oral sentence.” The SD
Supreme Court rejected all of Defendant’s assertions and affirmed the trial
court. The Court’s decision is unanimous
(5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
SCHOCKER v. FLUKE, 2024 S.D. 65: Inmate had been convicted by jury of “aggravated assault
against a law enforcement officer” and sentenced to 25 years in
prison, with 15 years suspended. His
direct appeal failed. Thereafter, inmate
brought this habeas corpus action alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court (“habeas court”) agreed and
granted relief to inmate. State
appeals. The SD Supreme Court affirmed,
also finding ineffective assistance of counsel. This decision is split (3-2), with the Court’s
opinion being authored by Justice Myren.
Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinion, which is supported by Justice
Salter, agreeing that the attorney’s performance was shown to be “deficient
performance,” but also stating that she is, “unable
to conclude that, but for this error, there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that [inmate]
would not have been convicted.”
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
