Opinion ID: 901816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Double Jeopardy Prohibition

Text: [¶ 63.] Defendant was convicted of two violations of manufacturing a controlled substance, [i]n, on, or within one thousand feet of real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school or a playground[.] SDCL 22-42-19(1); SDCL 22-42-2. Defendant was convicted twice because within 1000 feet of his residence were two schools and the State indicted defendant for two separate charges under SDCL 22-42-19(1). During closing arguments, defendant's counsel said that he did not believe that defendant could be convicted of both charges. Nonetheless, defendant was found guilty on both counts. During sentencing, however, counsel for the State and defendant discussed the two convictions. The prosecutor said that the State was not asking for consecutive time, and the court sentenced defendant concurrently on those charges. [¶ 64.] Defendant argues that he was punished twice for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause. He contends that the Legislature did not intend to impose multiple punishments under the statute. According to defendant, because the evidence established one act of manufacturing at one location on a single date, he cannot suffer two convictions and two sentences arising from this one act of manufacturing. The State, on the other hand, asserts that the intent of the statute was to impose multiple punishments, as the statute is designed to protect youth from illegal drug use. Moreover, according to the State, defendant's multiple convictions under SDCL 22-42-19(1) required proof of some fact or element not required by the other: one school in one charge, and a different school in the second charge. [¶ 65.] The Double Jeopardy Clause in the United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment, and the corresponding clause in the South Dakota Constitution, art. VI, sec. 9, shield criminal defendants from both multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same criminal offense if the Legislature did not intend to authorize multiple punishments in the same prosecution. State v. Dillon, 2001 SD 97, ¶ 13, 632 N.W.2d 37, 43. Established double jeopardy jurisprudence confirms that the Legislature may impose multiple punishments for the same conduct without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause if it clearly expresses its intent to do so. Id. ¶ 14. To assist in determining statutory intent, we apply the Blockburger test, which asks whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. Id. (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)). [¶ 66.] A person violates SDCL 22-42-19(1) if that person commits a violation of § 22-42-2 ... [and] if such activity has taken place: (1) In, on, or within one thousand feet of real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school or a playground[.] The statute, therefore, requires the State to prove a violation of a certain drug offense and that such violation took place within a certain distance of a school. The statute does not declare an intent to impose multiple punishments when multiple schools are involved, but only multiple punishments when multiple qualifying crimes are involved. Based on the plain reading of the statute, we conclude that the Legislature intended to impose one punishment for each violation under SDCL 22-42-2 that occurred within 1000 feet of a school. [¶ 67.] Here, defendant was only convicted of one violation of SDCL 22-42-2, and therefore, could only be convicted of one violation of SDCL 22-42-19(1). It is immaterial that the court sentenced defendant to concurrent sentences for violating SDCL 22-42-19(1). Defendant suffered two convictions under SDCL 22-42-19(1) for the same conduct, a single act of manufacturing a controlled substance, in violation of the double jeopardy clause. We remand for entry of an order striking one of the convictions and its accompanying sentence.