finding that a maximum sentence of fifteen years for the second degree burglary conviction of a developmentally disabled defendant was disproportionate where his accomplices received probation
How later courts described this case
- finding that a maximum sentence of fifteen years for the second degree burglary conviction of a developmentally disabled defendant was disproportionate where his accomplices received probation
- recognizing that “child victims of sex offenses often develop lifelong emotional problems”
- noting “an extremely deferential review” of sentences such that generally, a sentence “within the statutory maximum will not [be] disturbed on appeal”
- holding sentence was found grossly disproportionate especially in the absence of violence and menace
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GILBERTSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
[¶32.] I fully join in the opinion of the Court. I write specially only to emphasize that in the past our overturning of a criminal sentence on the basis of cruel and unusual punishment has been “exceedingly rare” and under the standard adopted today it will continue to be “exceedingly rare.” Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 289-90 , 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3009 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637, 649 (1983).
[¶33.] This Court is routinely petitioned for relief from those serving 18 months for multiple no account checks or two years for burglary. These types of sentences never have been cruel and unusual and, under today’s opinion, have no more basis for relief than in the past. State v. Sharp, 577 N.W.2d 333 (S.D. 1998); State v. Pourier, 575 N.W.2d 265 (S.D. 1997); State v. Arguello, 575 N.W.2d 265 (S.D. 1997); State v. Sanchez, 570 N.W.2d 42 (S.D.1997); State v. McDonald, 570 N.W.2d 43 (S.D.1997); State v. Zoll, 570 N.W.2d 246 (S.D.1997); State v. Rosales, 570 N.W.2d 246 (S.D.1997); State v. Miles, 570 N.W.2d 383 (S.D. 1997); State v. Nelson, 570 N.W.2d 383 (S.D. 1997); State v. Whiteaker, 557 N.W.2d 774 (S.D. 1996). * They are not “ ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime” but are instead, highly appropriate. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 , 111 S.Ct. 2680, 2705 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836, 869 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (quoting in part Solem, 463 U.S. at 303 , 103 S.Ct. at 3016 , 77 L.Ed.2d at 657 ).
These cases were summarily affirmed by this Court when this issue was raised.