Court Opinion

ID: 9515330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:55:46.346356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:28.079207
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in result).
[¶ 40.] I concur in result because it is settled law that these two drug convictions were separate transactions. SDCL 22-7-9. In fact, I would affirm and expedite the opinion under settled South Dakota law. SDCL 15-26A-87.1.
[¶ 41.] I agree that it is unnecessary to address Issues 2 and 3. Therefore, I see no reason to “review the pertinent case law on separate transactions within the context of our habitual offender sentencing scheme.” (See opinion, paragraph 31). Likewise, I would omit paragraphs 32, 33, 34 and 35 as unnecessary.