Court Opinion

ID: 9734353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:32:35.283157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:48.099232
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring).
Salway stole check blanks in Sioux Falls. By forgery, she presented two of these checks (drawn on the Morrell Federal Credit Union, Sioux Falls, South Dakota) to a Rapid City bank, obtaining $250 on each check. Per a plea bargain, the second forgery account was dismissed; she entered a guilty plea to one count of forgery and an admission (under Part II of the Information) to being a habitual offender.
It is the sentencing which is the subject of this lawsuit. Trial court sentenced Sal-way to five years on the forgery count (the maximum) and two years on the habitual offender charge, i.e., seven years. Salway was ordered to pay $1,190.93 in restitution. My reading of the record reflects that this arises by virtue of two letters by the Victim’s Assistance office in Pennington County, depicting claims from Norwest Bank, Check Rite, Serv-a-Check, and Rapid City Collection. Apparently, she does not dispute this figure. She was two and one-half months pregnant when she was sentenced. She admitted that she was convicted of third-degree burglary, a felony, in 1986. She is a very young, Native American (Indian) woman and, via the sentence, was to be imprisoned in the Springfield Correctional Facility, Springfield, South Dakota.* She is eligible for parole on November 15, 1992. This young Indian woman will be resentenced, via the edict of this Court, and this special writer prays that it be a determination of a fair judgment, and that this eligibility for parole, now approximately 4 months away, be considered. In my opinion, the sentencing should be based upon the circumstances of today, i.e., the reality of the situation, as distinguished from the date of the original sentence, so that the sentence is consonant with Salway’s present situation and considering her confinement plus the goals of punishment. This includes rehabilitation. See, State v. Weiker, 342 N.W.2d 7, 11 (S.D.1983).
As it stands, the present sentence misapprehends and misinterprets the sentencing statutes of this state. Trial court treated the habitual offender statute as a separate offense. This cannot be. A habitual offender admission (by defendant) or finding (by a court or a jury) is simply a manner by which the base crime, by way of punish*623ment, is enhanced. SDCL 22-7-7; State v. Cady, 422 N.W.2d 828 (S.D.1988). Essentially, the judgment below is invalid as it stands. Again, I pray His Honor’s judgment that a resentencing herein be not a route step procedure.

 Was this sentence "excessive” under the test in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)? We do not reach this because of our ruling that the sentencing process was flawed.