Opinion ID: 901462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: [¶20.] Generally, a sentence within the statutory maximum is reviewed by this Court under the abuse of discretion standard. State v. McKinney, 2005 SD 73, ¶10, 699 NW2d 471, 476 ( McKinney I ) (citing State v. Goodroad, 1997 SD 46, ¶40, 563 NW2d 126, 135 (citing State v. Anderson, 1996 SD 46, ¶30, 546 NW2d 395, 402)). We give `great deference to sentencing decisions made by trial courts.' State v. Garber, 2004 SD 2, ¶13, 674 NW2d 320, 323 (quoting State v. Milk, 2000 SD 28, ¶10, 607 NW2d 14, 17 (citing State v. Gehrke, 491 NW2d 421, 422 (SD 1992))). Absent specific authority, it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence[.] Id. (quoting Milk, 2000 SD 28, ¶10, 607 NW2d at 17 (quoting Gehrke, 491 NW2d at 423)). Thus, this Court will rarely overturn a sentence within the statutory maximum on appeal. State v. Herrmann, 2004 SD 53, ¶26, 679 NW2d 503, 511 (citing Garber, 2004 SD 2, ¶28, 674 NW2d at 327). [¶21.] However, when a defendant challenges a sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, our review is conducted using the standards set out in State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, 577 NW2d 575. State v. Piper, 2006 SD 1, ¶72, 709 NW2d 783, 810-11. We employ the following well-established principles when reviewing the proportionality of a given sentence: To assess a challenge to proportionality we first determine whether the sentence appears grossly disproportionate. To accomplish this, we consider the conduct involved, and any relevant past conduct, with utmost deference to the Legislature and the sentencing court. If these circumstances fail to suggest gross disproportionality, our review ends. Id. ¶72 (quoting Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶17, 577 NW2d at 580 (citing Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 US 957, 1000, 111 SCt 2680, 2704, 115 LEd2d 836 (1991))). We also compare the sentence with the criminal acts defendant committed and the consequences of those acts upon the victims and society. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶22, 577 NW2d at 581 (citing Harmelin, 501 US at 1000, 111 SCt at 2704, 115 LEd2d 836 (quoting Rummel v. Estelle , 445 US 263, 274-75, 100 SCt 1133, 1139, 63 LEd2d 382 (1980))). Only when the sentence appears grossly disproportionate will this Court conduct an intra and inter-jurisdictional analysis. Bonner, 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)). Not having had the benefit of witnesses appearing before us, we must defer to the circuit court's assessment on the credibility of witnesses. Id. (citing State v. Burtzlaff, 493 NW2d 1, 4-5 (SD 1992)).