Three Criminal Cases. Three affirmations by unanimous (5-0) rulings.

Three Criminal Cases. Three affirmations by unanimous (5-0) rulings.

The SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning: 

1)    Presumption of probation not applicable to revocation proceeding;

 

2)   1^st Degree Manslaughter Conviction upheld;

 

3)   Failure to appoint counsel in revocation hearing upheld as non-prejudicial

 

Summaries follows:

STATE v. DIETZ, 2024 S.D. 70: Defendant “pleaded guilty to two counts of counterfeiting lottery tickets in two separate files” and was given “five-year suspended sentences on each conviction.” Thereafter, Defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 5 years prison.  Defendant appeals.  The SD Supreme Court affirms, holding that Defendant indeed had a right to appeal, stating:

[¶18.] Accordingly, a right to appeal an order revoking a suspended execution of sentence exists under SDCL 15-26A-3(4), as such an order qualifies as a “final order affecting a substantial right, made in special proceedings, or upon summary application in an action after judgment[.]

But also holding that the “presumption of probation in SDCL 22-6-11” is applicable only at the time of sentencing and not in a “probation revocation proceeding.” 

This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion by Chief Justice Jensen.

 

STATE v. PFEIFFER, 2024 S.D. 71: Defendant (who was 18 at the time of the incident) was found guilty, by jury following a 7 day trial, of 1^st degree manslaughter in connection with the accidental shooting of his friend.  The trial court, “sentenced [Defendant] to thirty years in prison with twenty-three years suspended and credit for time served.”  Defendant appealed, primarily arguing 1) error in the jury instructions but also arguing 2) error in the trial court’s refusal to allow the jury to be told that the Deputy State’s Attorney had said (in a written brief in a bond hearing), that, Defendant “pull[ed] the trigger, in the belief that the gun was not loaded.”  The SD Supreme Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments and affirmed.  This is a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion by Justice DeVaney.

 

STATE v. FULLER, 2024 S.D. 72: Defendant was on felony probation for the drug charge of possession of more than 2 ounces of marijuana.  After two post-sentencing arrests, a probation revocation proceeding was instituted.  The trial court appointed two attorneys to assist Defendant in the revocation hearing.  After separate motions to withdraw by each attorney were granted, the trial court proceeded with the hearing (Defendant acting pro se) and imposed the previously-suspended 2 year prison sentence.  Appellate counsel was appointed.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, holding,

[¶62.] Although the [trial] court did not comply with the statute [SDCL 23A-40-6]  that required it to appoint counsel for [Defendant] in this revocation proceeding, [Defendant]  has not established prejudice.

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

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

Big Horn Sheep Covenant Enforced; remedy for breach of 1995 oral land contract denied

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    “no build” covenant for Big Horn Sheep enforced;

 

2)   Remedy for breach of 1995 oral contract regarding real property denied in 3-2 ruling.

 

Summaries follows:

 

SPRING CANYON PROPERTIES, LLC v. CAL SD, LLC, 2024 S.D. 68:  Owner of recently-acquired property located outside of Rapid City started construction of a fenced area for a garden, with construction of contained an “overhead truss” structure for anticipated “hail netting.” Owner of neighboring lot (and prior owner of lot in question) filed suit to enforce “restrictive no build covenant.”  The trial court granted an injunction requiring the removal of the “all overhead components of the building structure in the ‘No Build’ zone [and also] enjoin[ing Defendanst] from rebuilding or placing any new structure in the ‘No Build’ zone that exceeds 8’ in height as measured from ground level.” The SD Supreme Court affirmed the injunction, but also held that on remand the 8’ height prohibition was to be removed because the height restriction was beyond the relief requested and was not supported by the “no build covenant,” and was not mandated by “Pennington County Ordinance.”  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.

NOTE: The “no build” covenant states that its provisions were created for “the express purpose of allowing the free movement of big horn sheep in [the] wilderness preserve and to preclude any new fencing of areas…”

 

A photo of the garden fence and truss structure was included in the Court’s opinion and I have copied it at the bottom of this e-mail message. 

 

JOHNSON v. JOHNSON, 2024 S.D. 69: Parents deeded property to Daughter in 1995 under oral agreement described as follows in

[Daughter] and her family could live rent-free in [an adjoining] home. The agreement also contemplated that [Daughter] would transfer the [deeded property] equally to her four siblings and herself once she satisfied the mortgage on the [newly-constructed] home [on the deeded property.]

In 2005, surviving mother confirmed in writing that this was the intention of deceased father and mother in 1995 when making the “oral contract” with Daughter.

Daughter brought partition suit in 2018 in regard to ownership of adjoining property.  Brother answered, “claim[ing the 1995 oral contract] could be enforced through specific performance and partition of the [deeded property] or, in the alternative, an award of damages.”

Trial Court granted summary judgment for Daughter and against brother based, inter alia, upon the 6 year statute of limitations found in  SDCL 15-2-13.

The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This is a split decision (3-2).  The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Salter. 

Justice DeVaney filed a dissenting opinion in regard to the application of the 6 year statute of limitations, taking issue with the majority’s ruling in regard to when Brother (and siblings) had notice of Daughter’s intent to breach the oral contract and when the cause of action “accrued.”  Justice Kern agrees with Justice DeVaney’s view.  

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

Attached is a photo of the “garden fence” which is the subject of SPRING CANYON PROPERTIES, LLC v. CAL SD, LLC, 2024 S.D. 68, summarized above:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Granting Access to Victim's Journals triggers analysis of Marsy's Law

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

 

1)    Order granting access to victim’s journals reversed (Marsy’s law applied)

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. WALDNER, 2024 S.D. 67: Co-Defendants “were indicted on varying degrees of rape and sexual contact a minor less than sixteen years of age.” Defendants were provided portions of a journal maintained by minor which detailed the conduct in question.  In response thereto, Defendants “sought other journals and diaries written by [minor] through a subpoena duces tecum.”  Trial court denied minor’s motion to quash, allowing access for Defendants.  Taking an intermediate appeal, the SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded.  This opinion analyzes and applies Marsy’s Law, an Amendment to the SD Constitution approved by 60% of popular vote in 2016.  This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

  

This decision may be accessed at

 

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