 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Stahl12/13/2000
he public policy underlying SDCL 22-42-19.
[ ] Stahl did not receive the maximum penalty that could have been imposed under our statutes. No fines were imposed for any of his six convictions and his punishment for each of his two convictions for possession of marijuana was payment of court costs only. He was, however, sentenced to the maximum time on each of the four distribution charges. As previously noted, all of these sentences were ordered to run consecutively. It is presumed from the lack of written findings in the record that the sentencing court found no mitigating circumstances in this case. Given Stahl's lack of remorse or even acknowledgment of guilt, his lengthy criminal record and the limited discretion offered the sentencing court by the legislative mandates in SDCL 22-42-19, no abuse of discretion is shown under this record. The 24-year sentence Stahl received was not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crimes involving the distribution of drugs within 1,000 feet of an elementary school, a statutorily defined drug-free zone.
[ ] The judgments of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
[ ] MILLER, Chief Justice, and SABERS, AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP and GILBERTSON, Justices, participating.
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.
|
|