Court Opinion

ID: 9847994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:11:02.895825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:53.524671
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Justice
(concurring specialty)-
I join in the majority opinion. I would go further, however, and hold that the sen*13tences also fail when measured against the third of the criteria established by the United States Supreme Court in Solem v. Helm, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983).
Weiker argues that in only one other state, Wyoming, could he have received a life sentence without possibility of parole for the crimes of which he now stands convicted. The State has not challenged this assertion, and therefore I accept it as true. Thus, although other jurisdictions may authorize a life sentence for drug violations, only Wyoming and South Dakota provide that such a sentence shall be without possibility of parole.
If Weiker’s prior felonies had involved drug related violations, we would probably not long pause in affirming the sentences. See Solem v. Helm, supra, — U.S. at -, 103 S.Ct. at 3014, 77 L.Ed.2d at 655 n. 26. As it is, however, these are his original drug related convictions, and in only one other state could he have received as harsh a penalty as that imposed upon him in this state.
Were it not for the fact that SDCL 24-15-4 forecloses the Board of Pardons and Paroles from granting parole, I would have little hesitancy in affirming the sentences, for Weiker’s criminal record and his highly structured, regularized scheme of drug distribution render him deserving of a lengthy sentence on the grounds of retribution, deterrence, and public protection. His principal felonies were part of a planned, apparently highly profitable scheme of drug dealing, in stark contrast to the hapless Helms’ stuporous check writing offense.
To hold that the sentences must be set aside is not to restrict-the trial court from imposing sentences that will have the practical effect of carrying out the legislative policy incorporated in SDCL 22-42-2 and 22-7-8. Even without the sentence enhancement authorized by SDCL 22-7-8, the trial court could have sentenced Weiker to three consecutive ten-year sentences. SDCL 22-6-6.1. In view of his three prior felony convictions, Weiker will not be eligible for parole until he has served at least three-fourths of any sentence of less than life imprisonment. SDCL 24-15-5(3) and 24-15-7.