Opinion ID: 1717401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: imposition of more severe sentence

Text: Rich argues that he was punished for the exercise of his right to trial by jury by the imposition of a sentence more severe than that offered in a pretrial plea bargain. Prior to trial, the State offered Rich a plea bargain which would have required him to plead guilty to one ten-year felony count in exchange for State support for a maximum sentence of five years. The trial court was aware of the plea bargain and, while not necessarily in favor, was willing to agree to this proposed arrangement. The trial court sentenced Rich to the maximum ten-year penalty after the jury convicted Rich of one count of aggravated assault. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court received a presentence report and the testimony of a detective from the Rapid City Police Department. The detective testified as to Rich's frequent involvement in criminal activity in the Rapid City area which extended back twelve years. The trial court noted these facts on the record prior to sentencing. Rich claims the trial court was already generally aware of his prior criminal activity and record at the time the trial court approved the proposed plea bargain. The trial court has broad discretion in affixing sentences within the limits found in the statutes. State v. Braun, 351 N.W.2d 149 (S.D.1984). The trial court may properly consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence for the individual defendant. State v. Carsten, 264 N.W.2d 707 (S.D.1978). The trial court is not bound by plea negotiations offered by the prosecutor. State v. Bolger, 332 N.W. 2d 718 (S.D.1983); State v. Steinmetz, 247 N.W.2d 690 (S.D.1976). In this case, the trial court was informed and aware of aggravating circumstancesthe defendant's past criminal record and notoriety among Rapid City law enforcement. The trial court stated on the record its reasons for imposing the maximum sentence and that the sentence was not imposed to punish Rich for asserting his right to a jury trial. There is no evidence in this record which supports Rich's contention that the trial court imposed a ten-year, rather than a five-year sentence for reasons constituting an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.