12 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bonnergreen2 sentences2014We may also consider other relevant factors, such as the effect upon society of this type of offense. *838 Bonner, 1998 S.D. 30 , ¶ 17, 577 N.W.2d at 580 (citation omitted). [¶ 34.] In this case, the circuit court noted Craig’s conduct involved repeated sexual abuse of his nine-year-old granddaughter — a grand-daughter that was placed in his care. 2011See id. ¶ 26’ (“Since we have received no comparative information to conduct the within and without analysis, we remand to the circuit court so that information can be supplied and the sentencing judge can take it into account on resentencing.”). [¶ 40.] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. [¶ 41.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, Justice, concur. [¶ 42.] MEIERHENRY and SEVERSON, Justices, concur with a writing. . | 2 | 6 |
Harmelin v. Michigangreen2 sentences2004We may also consider other relevant factors, such as the effect upon society of this type of offense. 1998 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 577 N.W.2d at 580 (citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000 , 111 S.Ct. 2680, 2704 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836, 868 (1991)). 2004We may also consider other relevant factors, such as the effect upon society of this type of offense. 1998 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 577 N.W.2d at 580 (citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000 , 111 S.Ct. 2680, 2704 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836, 868 (1991)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Brimgreen2 sentences2012All of Olson’s sentences were within the statutory limitations and are thus afforded “substantial deference.” See State v. Brim, 2010 S.D. 74, ¶22 , 789 N.W.2d 80, 87 (citation omitted). 2012All of Olson’s sentences were within the statutory limitations and are thus afforded “substantial deference.” See State v. Brim, 2010 S.D. 74, ¶22 , 789 N.W.2d 80, 87 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olsongreen2 sentences2012Olson, 2012 S.D. 55, ¶46 , 816 N.W.2d at 842 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). [¶ 41.] We cannot conclude Schmidt’s sentences were grossly disproportionate. 2012Olson, 2012 S.D. 55, ¶46 , 816 N.W.2d at 842 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). [¶ 41.] We cannot conclude Schmidt’s sentences were grossly disproportionate. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hinger
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2003Id. | 2 | 2003–2006 |
State v. Dubois
green
2 sentences2012“If the sentence does appear grossly disproportionate, an intra- and inter-jurisdictional analysis shall be conducted.” Id. (quoting Dubois, 2008 S.D. 15 , ¶ 41, 746 N.W.2d at 210 ). [¶47.] In this case, although Olson’s sentences are significant, we cannot conclude they are grossly disproportionate. 2012“If the sentence does appear grossly disproportionate, an intra- and inter-jurisdictional analysis shall be conducted.” Id. (quoting Dubois, 2008 S.D. 15 , ¶ 41, 746 N.W.2d at 210 ). [¶47.] In this case, although Olson’s sentences are significant, we cannot conclude they are grossly disproportionate. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Blair
green
1 sentence2010Id. (citing Bonner, 1998 S.D. 30 , ¶ 17, 577 N.W.2d at 580 ). [¶ 35.] It is also settled that a trial court’s sentencing discretion requires understanding that “the Legislature in establishing a punishment range of zero to [ten] years for [Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Distribute] intended the more serious commissions of this crime to deserve sentences at the harsher end of the spectrum.” See id. ¶ 26, 721 N.W.2d at 63 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Steichen v. Weber
green
1 sentence2010“If the sentence does appear grossly disproportionate, an intra- and inter-jurisdictional analysis shall be conducted.” Id. (citations omitted). [¶ 22.] Brim’s sentence does not appear grossly disproportionate. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Piper
green
2 sentences2006Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 577 N.W.2d at 580 . [¶ 22.] On review, we also must adhere to the well-settled principle that this Court does not “resolve conflicts in evidence, pass on credibility of the evidence, or weigh the evidence^]” Piper, 2006 SD 1, ¶ 84 , 709 N.W.2d at 815 (citing State v. Romero, 269 N.W.2d 791 (S.D.1978)). 2006Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 577 N.W.2d at 580 . [¶ 22.] On review, we also must adhere to the well-settled principle that this Court does not “resolve conflicts in evidence, pass on credibility of the evidence, or weigh the evidence^]” Piper, 2006 SD 1, ¶ 84 , 709 N.W.2d at 815 (citing State v. Romero, 269 N.W.2d 791 (S.D.1978)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Romero
neutral
2 sentences2006Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶17 , 577 NW2d at 580 . [¶22.] On review, we also must adhere to the well-settled principle that this Court does not "resolve conflicts in evidence, pass on credibility of the evidence, or weigh the evidence[.]" Piper, 2006 SD 1, ¶84 , 709 NW2d at 815 (citing State v. Romero , 269 NW2d 791 (SD 1978)). 2006Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 577 N.W.2d at 580 . [¶ 22.] On review, we also must adhere to the well-settled principle that this Court does not “resolve conflicts in evidence, pass on credibility of the evidence, or weigh the evidence^]” Piper, 2006 SD 1, ¶ 84 , 709 N.W.2d at 815 (citing State v. Romero, 269 N.W.2d 791 (S.D.1978)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Guthmiller
green
1 sentence2005We also consider “the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty;” and other relevant factors, such as the effect this type of offense has on society. 4 Guthmiller, 2003 SD 83, ¶ 43 , 667 N.W.2d at 309 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.