DUI Court termination unsuccessfully challenged before Sentencing Court

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

 

1)    DUI Court termination unsuccessfully challenged before Sentencing Court

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. KARI, 2021 S.D. 33:  The Defendant in this case was given a chance to improve her life and avoid prison through participation in the DUI Court Program.  She did not succeed and was terminated from the program by the CUI Court.  When brought back to the original sentencing court, Defendant sought to challenge the basis of the DUI Court’s decision to terminate.  Ultimately the Sentencing Court heard evidence which was “substantially similar” to the evidence presented to the DUI Court, revoked probation and sentenced Defendant to 10 years, with 5 years suspended.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (4-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.  Justice Salter did not participate.  This decision reviews the law concerning the “reviewability” of a DUI Court’s termination decision by the Sentencing Court.  

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

 

Public Road exists despite contrary indication Recorded Plat

 

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

 

1. Public Road exists, despite lack of obligation of maintenance by County or Township

 

Summary follows:

 

NELSON v. GARBER, 2021 S.D. 32:  This dispute, which arose Roberts County, is summarized in the 1^st paragraph of the Court’s opinion:

 

[¶1.] Nelsons, Garber, and Dakotaraptor dispute their ownership interest in a section of roadway in the Bayview East Addition, referred to as Caster’s Road. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Garber and Dakotaraptor. It held that Caster’s Road is a public road that the county or township does not maintain, and the Nelsons hold no right to control who uses the road. The Nelsons appeal the circuit court’s order. We affirm.

 

This decision holds that a road may be a public road even if it is not maintained by a township or county, despite the fact contrary language on the recorded plat states that the road is dedicated for “Private Use.”  The trial court’s consideration of parol evidence on this issue was upheld.  Footnote 6 of the opinion is also helpful in understanding this case:

 

6. Our holding today does not require the County or Township to maintain Caster’s Road. See SDCL 11-3-12 (approval of a plat does not require governing body to “open, improve, or maintain” dedicated streets).

 

This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Myren.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

Back injury compensable under Work Comp notwithstanding preexisting condition

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

 

1)    Back injury compensable under Work Comp notwithstanding preexisting condition

 

Summary follows:

 

HUGHES v. DAKOTA MILL & GRAIN, 2021 S.D. 31:  Employee, with preexisting back condition, sought work comp compensation for back injury.  Employee’s job involved “heavy labor” and, “During the two weeks leading up to the at-issue incident, [employee] was removing a concrete floor in order to move pipes underground. To complete the project, [employee] used a concrete saw, jackhammer, and a Bobcat.” The employer and its insurer denied the claim on the basis of the employee’s preexisting condition.  At issue is whether the injury on the job is “a major contributing cause of the disability, impairment, or need for treatment,” as specified in SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b).  Dept. of Labor denied compensation.  The trial court reversed, holding the claim was compensable.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, in favor of the employee.  As to the causation issue, the Court stated:

 

[¶20.] A claimant is not required to prove that his or her work activities are at least 50% attributable to his or her condition in order to show that those activities were a major contributing cause of the condition. A claimant also does not need to show that there was a single cause of injury. Accordingly, a claimant is “not required to prove that his employment was the proximate, direct, or sole cause of his injury.” Smith v. Stan Houston Equip. Co., 2013 S.D. 65, ¶ 16, 836 N.W.2d 647, 652. Further, the claimant’s work activities do not have to be ‘“the’ major contributing cause” of the injury; they only have to be “‘a’ major contributing cause.” Peterson, 2012 S.D. 52, ¶ 21, 816 N.W.2d at 850 (citation omitted). 

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Retired Chief Justice Gilbertson.  NOTE:  Deliberations and/or crafting of the Court’s the opinion in this case appears to have been unusually protracted.  The matter was submitted to the Court on the briefs over a year ago, on April 20, 2020. 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

SD Supreme Court Releases 3 New Decisions today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1)    Sierra Club needs only representational standing;

2)   Rape conviction upheld;

3)   Dakotans for Health denied Mandamus against Secretary of State

 

Summaries follows:

 

SIERRA CLUB v. CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, 2021 S.D. 28:  The Sierra Club sought to contest an application for a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) in Clay County, but the trial court held that the Sierra lacked standing.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the Sierra Club lacked standing in its own right under SDCL 11-2-61.  But, the matter was reversed and remanded on the basis that the lower court failed to make the proper inquiry into the doctrine of representational standing which could support Sierra Club’s interest in the matter.  The Court stated in ¶31:

 

[T]he correct focus for representational standing inquiry is whether the members must participate as parties in order for Sierra Club to establish the claims raised and obtain the relief sought. Here, Sierra Club does not seek monetary relief on behalf of its members for injuries sustained, and the claims asserted focus on the manner in which the Board exercised its authority. The relief Sierra Club requests (reversal of the permit or a remand to further investigate) would simply “inure to the benefit” of the members. Therefore, although Sierra Club’s members might need to provide affidavits or testimony to establish standing as the proceedings before the circuit court progress, their participation as parties to the suit is not required.

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney

 

STATE v. TOWNSEND, 2021 S.D. 29:  Defendant having been convicted by jury of 2^nd degree rape and simple assault, was sentenced to 30 years in prison, with 10 years suspended.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Defendant’s assertions on appeal related to alleged insufficient evidence of force, plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel.  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.

 

DAKOTANS FOR HEALTH v. BARNETT, 2021 S.D. 30:  The 2021 Legislature approved HJR 5003 (proposing that certain initiated measures and constitutional amendments require approval by 3/5 of the votes cast), with submission to the voters set for the next primary election, June 2022. Dakotans for Health sought to refer HJR 5003 to voters in the 2022 General Election.   Secretary of State rejected the Petition filed by Dakotans for Health on the basis of procedural irregularity, “determin[ing] that HJR 5003 did not qualify as a ‘law which the legislature may have enacted,’ pursuant to SDCL 2-1-3, and that the petition did not contain a valid effective date as required by SDCL 2-1- 3.1.” In response thereto, Dakotans for Health filed this original mandamus proceeding in the SD Supreme Court.  The Court ordered expedited briefing and entertained oral argument on April 15, 2021, just 3 weeks ago.  Today’s decision upholds the Secretary of State, denying the requested writ of mandamus.  This decision is unanimous (5-0) and made as a per curiam ruling.  

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

) Euthanization order for vicious dogs upheld

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

 

1)    Euthanization order for vicious dogs upheld

 

Summary follows:

 

 CITY OF ONIDA v. BRANDT & MEYER, 2021 S.D. 27:  City sought to euthanize dogs (“two black, Labrador-mix dogs”) it deemed to be “vicious animals” under City Ordinance.  Trial court found that the city ordinance was inapplicable but authorized the Sully County Sheriff to euthanize the dogs under SDCL 7-12-29.  Dog owners appealed.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This ruling is unanimous with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

Drug offenses (Yankton); Contempt of Court (visitation rights); LWOP sentence upheld

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1. Multiples sentences for drug offenses affirmed;
2. Contempt of Court remedy, visitation rights; and
3. LWOP (Life without parole) sentence upheld for guilty plea as to aiding and abetting 1^st degree manslaughter.

 

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. SHELTON, 2021 S.D. 22: The facts and disposition in this criminal drug case from Yankton are described by the Court as follows:

 

[¶1.] Following a jury trial, Shawn Michael Shelton (Shelton) was convicted of three felony drug offenses in connection with the sale of methamphetamine to a confidential informant (CI). He appeals, alleging that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his motions to admit a written agreement with an informant and two demonstrative exhibits and for a new trial. He also contends that the sentence he received was cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.

 

This Defendant (who at the time of sentencing was an inmate in the penitentiary serving time on 4 prior Yankton County convictions) was sentenced:

 

[T]o serve fifteen years for the possession and distribution counts, to run concurrently to each other and to the sentences he was currently serving. For the offense of distribution in a drug free zone, the court sentenced Shelton to serve twenty-five years, with fifteen years suspended, to run consecutively to his other sentences.

 

The SD Supreme Court affirmed, stating:

 

[¶42.] Shelton is a habitual offender with six prior drug convictions. His sentence for three additional drug felonies, two of which the court permitted to run concurrently while suspending a portion of the third, is not grossly disproportionate to his crimes, or cruel and unusual.

 

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

 

METZGER v. METZGER, 2021 S.D. 23: This is a contempt proceeding with Father seeking relief related to Mother’s failure to comply with visitation provisions set forth in the Divorce Decree. In both the contempt proceeding and in the SD Supreme Court, mother proceeded pro se.  In the trial court, Mother “testified that her attorney never provided her with any documentation throughout the case.”   The trial court found for Mother on the basis of lack of knowledge of the terms of the Decree.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding, “The circuit court clearly erred when it found that [Mother] did not have knowledge of the contents of the judgment and decree of divorce.”  This opinion provides a nice review of the elements required for a contempt proceeding.  NOTE:  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.  Justice Myren was the trial judge in this case.  Former Chief Justice Gilbertson participated in the SD Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

STATE v. KLINETOBE, 2021 S.D. 24:  After pleading guilty to “aiding and abetting first-degree manslaughter,” Defendant was sentenced to LWOP (life without parole).  Defendant’s  appeal, premised upon the assertions of abuse of discretion and cruel and unusual punishment, is rejected with the SD Supreme Court affirming in a unanimous (5-0) ruling.  Opinion is authored by Justice Salter.  Circuit Judge Clark sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Kern. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

Vehicular Homicide & DUI Convictions Affirmed

 

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

 

1. Vehicular Homicide and DUI convictions upheld notwithstanding error in failure to sustain Motion to Suppress evidence

 

Summary follows:

 

 STATE v. ANGLE, 2021 S.D. 21:  Defendant was charged with Vehicular Homicide and DUI. Defendant waived jury trial, tried the case to the court and was found guilty.  The trial court sentenced Defendant, “to fifteen years in the penitentiary with credit for 350 days served and two years suspended upon certain conditions… [and] to 350 days in county jail for DUI-first offense conviction with credit for 350 days served.”  Defendant’s appeal focuses on the failure of the investigating officer to properly Mirandize her, asserting that the trial court should have sustained her Motion to Suppress and that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.  The SD Supreme Court agreed that that the trial court should have granted Defendant’s Motion to Suppress but, nonetheless, affirmed the convictions based upon “overwhelming evidence,” stating:

 

[¶29.] Although the circuit court erred by denying Angle’s suppression motion, Deputy Lanning’s failure to advise her that she had the right to appointed counsel before questioning her at the hospital was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence against her. The circuit court did not err when it denied Angle’s motion for acquittal, finding sufficient evidence to sustain her convictions for vehicular homicide and driving under the influence. We affirm.  

 

This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter. 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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