Case Title: State v. Ferguson

Citation: 519 N.W.2d 50

Docket Number: 

State: south-dakota

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1994-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
519 N.W.2d 50 (1994) STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Toby Wade FERGUSON, Defendant and Appellant. No. 18244. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs on October 7, 1993. Decided June 29, 1994. *51 Mark Barnett, Atty. Gen., Sherri Sundem Wald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee. Robert Van Norman, Rapid City, for defendant and appellant. AMUNDSON, Justice. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Toby Wade Ferguson (Ferguson) pled guilty to one count of rape, SDCL 22-22-1(1) and seven counts of sexual contact with a minor, (SDCL 22-22-7). Twenty-seven (27) counts of rape and thirty-one (31) counts of sexual contact with a minor were dismissed. Ferguson was sentenced to 180 years in the penitentiary on the rape conviction; 90 years were conditionally suspended. He was sentenced to fifteen years on each of the sexual contact convictions. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. On appeal, Ferguson contends his sentence is excessive and violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article VI, § 23 of the South Dakota Constitution. We affirm. Ferguson was born on January 15, 1971. As a child, he was sexually abused. Ferguson never received treatment for this abuse. Throughout his school years, Ferguson was a good student who was active in extracurricular activities and popular with his peers. He has no criminal record. In 1989 Ferguson began attending Black Hills State University. He was a business administration major who, by the spring of 1992, completed 79 credit hours with a 2.42 GPA. While at BHSU, he also worked as a shift manager at Wendy's and at a roller skating rink. He was also involved in the karate club where he was voted the most inspirational student. Through Ferguson's involvement as an instructor in the karate club and a participant in the Kinship Program (which pairs adult volunteers with children in a big brother/sister program) he became acquainted with young boys in the community. Ferguson developed relationships with eight boys ranging in age from eight to thirteen, and second through seventh grades. Ferguson befriended the boys and roller skated or played video games with them. Ferguson also gained the trust of the parent(s) who initially believed that he was a good role model and allowed their children to spend time with him. Ultimately the boys went to Ferguson's home and were victimized by Ferguson's acts of anal intercourse, oral sex, and fondling. In 1992, as a result of relationships that he developed with these boys, Ferguson was ultimately charged with twenty-six counts of rape in violation of SDCL 22-22-1(1), two counts of rape in violation of SDCL 22-22-1(5), and thirty-eight counts of sexual contact with a minor. Pursuant to a plea agreement Ferguson pled guilty to one count of rape and seven counts of sexual contact with a minor. The state agreed to dismiss the other fifty-eight pending counts of rape and sexual contact. It was agreed that Ferguson would not receive a sentence of life without parole on the rape count and that the sentences would run concurrently. The state's recommendation of a 200 year sentence on the rape charge did not form a basis for the plea agreement nor was it a sentence cap. No bargain was made as to a sentence cap or a term of years other than no life imprisonment without parole eligibility.[*]*52 Ferguson explained that he accepted this agreement to avoid the greater risk he saw if he went to trial on the enormous number of charges facing him. An extensive presentence report was prepared detailing Ferguson's dysfunctional family life, his success as a student and worker, and his lack of a criminal career. The psychologist that interviewed him concluded that he needed ongoing retraining and psychotherapy/counseling. Since there were few alternatives in South Dakota for people with the "problem of the complexity of [Ferguson]" out-of-state placement was urged. Because Ferguson was not in total denial as to what he had done, the M.S.W. that evaluated him found Ferguson's "prognosis with appropriate treatment is good" and recommended out-of-state treatment. The STOP director at the penitentiary, however, noted Ferguson's high risk for reoffending due to the number of victims, Ferguson's young age, his threats of violence toward his victims, and the fact that all of the victims were pre-pubescent males. The court services officer noted that a pedophile like Ferguson who prefers prepubescent boys has a recidivism rate doubled that of other pedophiles. The presentence report also included victim impact interviews and interviews with the victims' parents detailing the lasting impact that Ferguson's sexual acts had on the victims and their families. When sentencing Ferguson the trial court explained its reasoning which we set forth in full: Court will be in recess. WHETHER IMPOSITION OF A 180 YEAR PENITENTIARY SENTENCE WITH 90 YEARS SUSPENDED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? State v. Castaneira, 502 N.W.2d 112, 114-115 (S.D.1993) quoting, State v. Gehrke, 491 N.W.2d 421, 423 (S.D.1992). *54 The test to determine whether a sentence is so constitutionally offensive as to shock the conscience is two-fold. State v. Shilvock-Havird, 472 N.W.2d 773 (S.D.1991). Id., 472 N.W.2d at 779. State v. Pack, 516 N.W.2d 665, 667-68 (S.D.1994). Ferguson argues that the conscience should be shocked because he is young, was molested himself and never received treatment, is a first-time offender, is a good student, has no arrest record, and is amendable to treatable. Ferguson ignores several important aspects of this case, however. Ferguson pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in order to avoid a sentence of life without parole. At his plea hearing, Ferguson specifically stated on the record that under the plea agreement he received "the benefit of the bargain" which was to avoid the greater risk facing him if he went to trial on the sixty-six charges he faced. Ferguson did not move to withdraw the plea either before or after sentencing. SDCL 23A-27-11. Ferguson received a sentence which, by his own computation, allows for parole eligibility in twenty-one years. He will be forty-two years old at that time. As such, a term of years allows for rehabilitation, see Bult v. Leapley, 507 N.W.2d 325 (S.D.1993), and allows Ferguson hope. See State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 686 (S.D.1984), Henderson, J., dissenting. In addition, we note that Ferguson placed himself in a position of trust in relation to the victims and their parents. He betrayed that trust and repeatedly sexually abused eight very young boys, two of whom he continues to deny abusing. As such, his sentence is not so constitutionally offensive as to shock the conscience. State v. Basker, 468 N.W.2d 413 (S.D.1991); State v. Pack, 516 N.W.2d 665 (S.D.1994). Finally, Ferguson also argues that his sentence is disproportionate. The settled record reflects that Ferguson and his counsel were well aware that the state would be recommending a 200 year sentence. They were also aware that the trial court had an absolute right to accept or reject this recommendation. Notwithstanding this gratuitous disclosure, Ferguson presented no evidence or facts to the trial court at the time of the sentencing hearing or subsequently regarding alleged disproportionality. In light of the settled precedent in this state, this Court has consistently refrained from second guessing the trial court's sentencing decision: State v. Holloway, 482 N.W.2d 306, 311 (S.D.1992). State v. Sheridan, 383 N.W.2d 865, 867 (S.D.1986), Henderson, J. (specially concurring). Affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST and SABERS, JJ., concur. HENDERSON, J., concurs specially. HENDERSON, Justice (specially concurring). Appellate counsel for Ferguson was also trial counsel. Under SDCL 23A-27-11, counsel was permitted to make a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty before sentence was imposed. Alternatively, counsel could have filed a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty "... to correct manifest injustice ... after sentence ..." Counsel made no such motion. Apparently, the plea bargain was acceptable to Ferguson and to his counsel. Had Ferguson moved to withdraw his guilty plea, the trial court did not have to grant it. It is all within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Grosh, 387 N.W.2d 503 (S.D.1986). Having accepted the sentence and the dismissal of many counts of sexual abuse of prepubescent boys, Ferguson now comes to the Supreme Court upon an Eighth Amendment argument, namely that he has received unconstitutional punishment. In the appellant's brief, Ferguson's counsel now sets forth, for the first time, studies involving sex offenders within South Dakota which were gathered from the South Dakota Statistical Analysis Center within the Division of Criminal Investigation of the Office of the South Dakota Attorney General. Further, for the first time, again at appellate level, Ferguson presents statutes of adjoining states with lesser penalties for similar offenses. Too late. Said information is not part of the settled record. State v. Herman, 253 N.W.2d 454, 457 (S.D.1977). No motion was ever made to the trial court to present any statistics, studies, data, or history of cases, court records or studies which would trigger a shock the conscience or disproportionality review. The tactic of Ferguson and his counsel appears obvious: Take advantage of the plea bargain and later, at the appellate level, try to set aside the sentence as being unconstitutional punishment. The material presented in the brief by way of statistics within the South Dakota Statistical Analysis Center was apparently held as a backup for appellate advocacy. Ferguson cannot have it both ways: First take advantage of the plea bargain and then seek to repudiate it by erupting, for the first time at appellate level, with a host of statutory and sentencing references and statistics. Compare my dissent in State v. Pack, 516 N.W.2d 665 (S.D.1994), where appellant Pack requested a sentencing hearing to produce Unified Judicial System (UJS) sentencing statistics, but could not do so as the UJS would not furnish same without receiving $448.00. Pack was indigent. Compare, also, the special concurrence of this writer in Bult v. Leapley, 507 N.W.2d 325, 333 (S.D.1993), where I expressed: [*] The trial court went through a painstakingly detailed explanation of the plea agreement with Ferguson to ensure that Ferguson understood and was fully aware of the plea agreement. The trial court's explanation concluded with: THE COURT: To sum it up then, Mr. Ferguson, I think there are two limitations on the Court under this plea agreement. Number one is that the sentence imposed on the rape charge cannot be a life sentence. It can only be a sentence for a term of years. But the 200 years is not any type of an agreement. It's not a maximum, it's not a minimum. It's a recommendation. The second assumption is and the second limitation on the Court is that all of the sentences will be concurrent as opposed to consecutive. Those are the only two limitations that I see in this plea agreement on the Court other than what maximums are set by law. Do you understand that? MR. FERGUSON: Yes. THE COURT: Any questions to ask me about your plea agreement? MR. FERGUSON: No.