Court Opinion

ID: 9733607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:11:46.873429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:42.701988
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in part; specially concurring in part).
I concur with the dissertation on issues 1, 2 and 3.
I concur on issue 4 which holds that the “sentences are reversed and the matter is remanded for sentencing in accordance with this opinion.” Therefore, under (a), issues 5 and 6, the trial court must consider the sentences anew to the extent of determining a proper sentence. It is anticipatory, in the opinion of this writer, to pass upon the abuse of discretion/cruel and unusual punishment aspect of this case, when the sentence is being reversed. Judicially, it is difficult, if not impossible, to take a position on an ultimate sentence until it is adjudicated.
In connection with the sentencing, a record should be made below concerning any future sentence so that a Helm/Weiker analysis may be applied by the trial court. Such a record would permit this Court to review a sentence based upon an adequate record. State v. Janssen, 371 N.W.2d 353 (S.D.1985). A disproportionality analysis cannot be raised at the appellate court level unless it is raised below with case studies, statistics and data.
I concur in the entire dissertation under (b), issues 5 and 6, restitution.