 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Stahl12/13/2000
Appeal from the Third Judicial Circuit, Beadle County, SD Hon. Eugene L. Martin, Judge
Affirmed
Argued Oct 24, 2000; Opinion Filed Dec 13, 2000
[ ] Dean Desire Stahl appeals from his judgments of conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana, distribution of marijuana, and distribution of marijuana in a drug-free zone. Stahl claims his 24-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and an abuse of the sentencing court's discretion. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
[ ] Stahl sold marijuana to Avery Sorenson on December 9 and 11, 1998 while Sorenson was assisting law enforcement with controlled drug buys. Two officers of the Huron Police Department had earlier searched Sorenson, provided him with money with which to purchase drugs from Stahl, and outfitted him with a recording device. The two officers maintained audio contact with Sorenson at all relevant times. Both drug buys took place in Stahl's home, located within 1,000 feet of Jefferson Elementary School in Huron. Sorenson was retrieved by law enforcement immediately after each buy and debriefed.
[ ] Stahl was arrested March 8, 1999. He was subsequently indicted on two counts of possession of marijuana, two counts of distribution of marijuana, two counts of distribution of marijuana within a drug-free zone and witness tampering. He was convicted by a jury on the possession and distribution charges and acquitted of witness tampering. He was sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary on each of the two distribution counts and ten years on each of the two distribution in a drug-free zone counts. On the possession counts, Stahl was ordered to pay court costs. The penitentiary sentences were ordered to run consecutively, resulting in a 24-year prison sentence.
[ ] Stahl appeals, claiming his sentence is an abuse of discretion and a violation of his constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[ ] The Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment "forbids only extreme sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime." State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, , 577 NW2d 575, 579 (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 US 957, 1001, 111 SCt 2680, 2705, 115 LEd2d 836, 869) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
o assess a challenge to proportionality we first determine whether the sentence appears grossly disproportionate. To accomplish this, we consider the conduct involved, and any relevant past conduct, with utmost deference to the Legislature and the sentencing court. If these circumstances fail to suggest gross disproportionality, our review ends. If, on the other hand, the sentence appears grossly disproportionate, we may, in addition to examining the other Solem factors, conduct an intra- and inter-jurisdictional analysis to aid our comparison or remand to the circuit court to conduct such comparison before resentencing. We may also consider other relevant factors, such as the effect upon society of this type of offense.
Id. at , 577 NW2d at 580. We have long stated that we take "an extremely deferential review of sentencing -- generally, a sentence within the statutory maximum will not be disturbed on appeal." Id. at , 577 NW2d at 578 (citing State v. Kaiser, 526 NW2d 722 (SD 1995)). We will not "engage in appellate resentencing, or [ ] 'micromanage the administration of criminal justice' in South Dakota, even when individual trial judges impose widely different punishments for the same offense." Id. at , 577 NW2d at 578.
[ ] Stahl's relevant past conduct includes a criminal record of nineteen prior misdemeanor convictions and t
Page 1 2 3 4 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|