# State v. Bonner

> South Dakota Supreme Court · April 1, 1998 · 577 N.W.2d 575

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514534

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jonathan James BONNER, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 1, 1998
- **Citations:** 577 N.W.2d 575; 1998 SD 30; 1998 S.D. LEXIS 32
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gilbertson
- **Judges:** Konenkamp, Miller, Sabers, Amundson, Gilbertson
- **Cited by:** 60 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514534

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- stating “children are incapable of ‘consenting’ to voluntary sexual relations”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514534. Public record. Not legal advice.