Court Opinion

ID: 9690090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:53:24.909507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:53.509013
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
Here, the trial court refused to grant a sentencing hearing for Pack when Pack desired to utilize comparative sentencing statistics from the Unified Judicial System’s (UJS) data base of sentencing information. Pack requested that Lawrence County pay funds to UJS, which is created by the State Constitution of South Dakota and funded by taxpayers’ dollars each year by our State Legislature. This requested data is vital to effectively represent the indigent defendant, Pack, to present criteria under the proportionality review analysis. Said “analysis” was birthed under Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). Introduced in evidence was a UJS letter of May 21, 1993, reflecting that these statistics could be produced for $448. If Pack had the money (which he does not), these statistics would have been available. In Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 76, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1092, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), the United States Supreme Court expressed that it “has long recognized that when a State brings its judicial power to bear on an indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding, it must take steps to assure that the defendant has a fair opportunity to present his defense.” UJS would not release this information without receiving said money.
Pack, deprived of a hearing (1) to present sentencing statistics to the trial court (2) was also denied the right to even append UJS statistics to his brief. He did not have the money to produce the statistics. The upshot of all of this is that the Unified Judicial System, of which the Justices of this Court are stewards, has deprived Pack of a proportionality review of the “within and without the jurisdiction” proportionality test. Pack was totally denied a consideration in the sentencing process because he was indigent. Excessive or disproportionate sentences have been constitutionally offensive since 1892 in South Dakota. State v. Becker, 3 S.D. 29, 51 N.W. 1018 (1892). See also, State v. Bad Heart Bull, 257 N.W.2d 715, 720 (S.D.1977).
On appeal, we first determine whether the sentence “shocks the conscience” or is so disproportionate to the crime that it activates the Eighth Amendment “within and without jurisdiction” proportionality tests. (Emphasis supplied mine.)
State v. Lykken, 484 N.W.2d 869, 879 (S.D.1992). Accord State v. Andrews, 393 N.W.2d 76, 82 (S.D.1986); State v. Weiker, 366 N.W.2d 823, 827 (S.D.1985) (Weiker II). Notice that little word “or”; it is powerful.
As it now stands, Pack received the maximum sentence of 15 years on each count, to be served consecutively, which is a 30-year sentence. This certainly activates a fair examination, in my opinion, of a proportionality review analysis under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. VI, § 23 of the South Dakota Constitution. Therefore, this case should be reversed and remanded with directions that a sentencing hearing be held below and Pack be then permitted to obtain statistics which are readily available from the UJS so that he may present sentencing statistics to the trial court for its consideration. And failing below (if such be the case), to establish a record for meaningful review by this Court.
For what purpose are these statistics compiled in the Criminal Justice Information System? To gather dust in the archives at Pierre? To readily make available statistics to the state prosecutors of South Dakota for *671their information, as well as the Department of Criminal Investigation, Highway Patrol, State Police Radio, Driver Improvement, and Game, Fish & Parks? But to then deny these statistics to the defense lawyers of this state so that they cannot effectively represent the constitutional rights of their client?
Under the authority of SDCL 19-10-2 and State v. Oster, 495 N.W.2d 305, 312 (S.D.1993), judicial notice is taken of the following documents within the Unified Judicial System records, reflecting the availability of sentencing statistics to “various law enforcement agencies.”

First Document

The Clerk of Court Criminal Docketing system was developed as part of a state wide Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS). The system is designed to automatically report criminal dispositions from the Clerk of Court’s records to various law enforcement agencies such as Driver Improvement, Highway Patrol, Division of Criminal Investigation, and Game, Fish & Parks. In addition to alleviating the dispositional reporting for the case information, accounting charges information, and various forms such as bench warrants and jail forms. The name and warrant search features of the on-line system allow the clerk to instantly find requested cases. The courtroom docketing feature of CJIS allows the clerk to immediately enter sentences on a terminal in the courtroom. (Emphasis supplied mine.)
This on-line system has been operational in Hughes County since August of 1988. During fiscal year 1990, Yankton, Lawrence, and Brown counties were converted to the on-line CJIS system. Brookings, Minnehaha Circuit Court, Meade, Davison, Codington, Lake, and Pennington counties were placed on-line during fiscal year 1991. Union, Lincoln, Beadle, Clay, and Roberts counties were placed on-line in fiscal year 1992.
Beginning in fiscal year 1993, counties placed on-line did not require courtroom docketing because of their volume, and terminals were only placed in the Clerk of Court’s office. Charles Mix, Bon Homme, Kingsbury, Moody, Walworth, Day, Tripp, Lyman, Jackson, Stanley, Custer, Fall River,- and Butte counties were placed on-line in fiscal years 1993 and 1994. Turner, Grant, Brule, Spink, Gregory, and Bennett counties are budgeted to be placed on-line in fiscal year 1995. At the end of fiscal year 1995, there will be 35 counties operating on the on-line CJIS. The remaining counties in the state are operating on the “batch” CJIS system. Programs are maintained by the Unified Judicial System.

Second Document

From a document within the UJS, submitted as a budget document for FY 88, of which I also take judicial notice, it is clear that during the summer of 1983, Governor William Janklow appointed a task force to determine the feasibility of a statewide Criminal Justice Information System. Personnel from UJS and law enforcement agencies were drawn together to establish an on-line system (originally) in the thirteen largest criminal case filing counties. This comprised approximately 60-70% of the criminal caseload in South Dakota. Governor Janklow gave a formal go-ahead to the project in November of 1984. This system was birthed and it exists today. It should be noted that this system will automate manual procedures which (in FY 1988) processed approximately $24.9 million annually. Its creation spawned the groundwork for a new accounting system for the UJS. This same document expresses that “at the end of fiscal year 1995, there will be 35 counties operating on the on-line CJIS.” All remaining counties in the state are operating on what is known as the “batch CJIS system.” Are data, statistics, and records available for proportionality review? Yes. But apparently not to defense counsel in this state if counsel represents an indigent and a trial judge will not enter an order for a county to pay for these available statistics.

Third Document

And the taxpayers of South Dakota, what have they contributed to the CJIS system in recent years and what is the projection in dollars for 1994 and 1995?
*672Actual Expense FY 90 $100,217
Actual Expense FY 91 $152,185
Actual Expense FY 92 $176,277
Actual Expense FY 93 $175,130
Projected Expense FY 94 $215,000
Projected Expense FY 95 $183,000
This amounts to over 1 million dollars funded or to be funded into this system by the taxpayers of South Dakota in a period of six years! There was no room, financially, for this defense lawyer to obtain records to defend his client. UJS wanted $448.00 from Pack.
It is inherently unfair to appoint defense counsel to represent a defendant in a criminal case, deny him sentencing data, and then expect counsel to accomplish his awesome responsibility of protecting his client in the sentencing phase. Counsel was absolutely stripped of defense tools, timely requested, regarding CJIS statistics which were available. I heartily disagree with the interpretation and emphasis in footnote 5 of the majority opinion regarding the holding in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991). Justice Scalia, ’writing for the Court, was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Their exact viewpoint was not shared by seven other Justices. See my special concurrence, Bult v. Leapley, 507 N.W.2d 325, 333 (S.D.1993).
I do not, for one moment, approve of Pack’s conduct. But the day of approving a sentence — simply because it is within statutory limits — is gone — like sod huts on the prairie. Helm said so, and so does Harmelin.
Therefore, I dissent.