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) 1st 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 Thereafter, Defendant’s probation was
revoked and he was sentenced to 5 years prison.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 1st
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 .
