Court Opinion

ID: 9739212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:10:37.651534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.726570
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).
Essentially, I agree with the majority opinion on the merits — but cannot agree to affirm the sentence. I maintain a serious error in law exists in this case and believe I owe a duty to call it to the attention of this Court and the Bar and Bench of this state.
Harris is a 17 year-old boy. He was transferred out of the juvenile division to the adult side of the circuit court. He was placed on 40 years probation. In my opinion, this sentence is illegal. Therefore, this case should be affirmed on the merits, but the sentence must be set aside and remanded so that the trial court can impose a legal sentence.
Subjects, thoughts, and concepts that I address have not been briefed nor presented as issues unto this tribunal. Therefore, at first blush, this writing is untenable.
However, I call attention to SDCL 23A-44-15 which provides that plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to this Court’s attention. State v. Breed, 399 N.W.2d 311 (S.D.1987); State v. Brammer, 304 N.W.2d 111 (S.D.1981).
Notwithstanding, we have held that the plain error rule applies in exceptional cases and then it must be applied cautiously; the rule does not encompass every error that occurs at trial, but only those which are both obvious and substantial. People in Interest of R.R., 447 N.W.2d 922 (S.D.1989). Before us, we have an exceptional case and a substantial sentencing error.
Harris was found guilty of:
• One Count Kidnapping — Class 1 felony (Maximum Life Imprisonment and 125,000' fine);
• One Count Intentional Damage to Public Property — Class 4 Felony (Maximum 10 years and $10,000);
• Three Counts Aggravated Assault— ■ Class 3 Felony (Maximum 15 years and $15,000 fine).
As I previously expressed, Harris was placed on probation and for a period of 40 *628years. SDCL 23A-27-12 and SDCL 23A-27-13 forbid probation because of his kidnapping conviction. These two statutes with added emphasis, follow:
SDCL 23A-27-12. (Rule 32(e)) Placement on probation — Exception. After conviction of an offense not punishable by death or life imprisonment, a defendant may be placed on probation. No person who has been previously convicted for a crime of violence as defined in § 22-1-2(9) may be placed on probation if his second or subsequent felony conviction is for a crime of violence as defined in § 22-1-2(9).
SDCL 23A-27-13. Order suspending imposition of sentence and placing defendant on probation — Revocation of suspension. Upon receiving a verdict or plea of guilty for a misdemeanor or felony not punishable by death or life imprisonment by a person never before convicted of a crime which at the time of conviction thereof would constitute a felony in this state, a court having jurisdiction of the defendant, when satisfied that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as the defendant will be served thereby may, without entering a judgment of guilt, and with the consent of the defendant, suspend the imposition of sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem best. A court may revoke such suspension at any time during the probationary period and impose and execute sentence without diminishment or credit for any of the probationary period.
Under South Dakota Constitution, Art. V, § 5, the circuit courts of this state are empowered to place offenders on probation but must do so in statutorily mandated circumstances and by certain statutorily mandated ways. State v. Oban, 372 N.W.2d 125 (S.D.1985). It simply was not statutorily accomplished in this case.
Clearly, this sentence is illegal under State v. Tibbetts, 333 N.W.2d 440 (S.D.1983) and should be corrected under Chapter 23A-31, CORRECTION OF PROCEEDINGS, and particularly SDCL 23A-31-1.
In summation, this case should be affirmed on the merits but reversed because of an improper sentence under the facts of this case and the kidnapping conviction.