State v. Anderson, 867 N.W.2d 718

Sierra Anderson (22) pleaded guilty to distribution and possession of methamphetamine after selling 0.75g and having 0.25g found in her purse. She received a six-year penitentiary term (two years suspended) for distribution (not appealed).
Possession (SDCL 22-42-5) is a class 5 felony; SDCL 22-6-11 makes probation presumptive for class 5 felonies unless certain exceptions apply, but allows departure if aggravating circumstances pose a significant public risk.
For the possession count the circuit court imposed four years (two suspended) rather than presumptive probation, citing four aggravators: guilty plea to distribution, unemployment/sporadic employment, juvenile probation violation, and poor probation candidacy requiring high supervision.
Anderson appealed, arguing the upward dispositional departure violated her Sixth Amendment jury-trial rights under Apprendi and its progeny because the aggravating facts were not found by a jury nor admitted.
The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed, holding judicial factfinding to deny presumptive probation does not violate Apprendi when informed by historical practice and state sovereignty considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denying presumptive probation based on judge-found aggravating facts violates the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi and related Supreme Court decisions	Anderson: Court’s upward dispositional departure increased punishment based on facts not found by a jury or admitted, violating Apprendi/Blakely/Alleyne	State: Probation determinations are historically a judicial function; finding facts to impose incarceration instead of probation does not encroach on the jury’s role and fits Ice’s framework	Held: Affirmed. Judicial factfinding to deny presumptive probation is constitutional under Apprendi line when historical practice and state sovereignty permit judicial sentencing determinations

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing prescribed penalty must be submitted to a jury)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (statutory maximum defined by jury verdicts or admissions)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (judicial factfinding to order consecutive sentences for distinct crimes does not violate Apprendi; historical practice and state sovereignty inform scope)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (Apprendi applies to facts that increase mandatory minimums)
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (probation is a court-imposed criminal sanction; different procedural protections at revocation)
Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (Apprendi principles apply to civil fines)