State v. Chipps, 2016 SD 8

In April 2014, Christopher Chipps was linked by surveillance video, pawn records, and other circumstantial evidence to a burglary of David and Charlotte Crisp's home and to unauthorized uses of Charlotte's credit/debit cards shortly after the burglary. Stolen jewelry pawned by Chipps was identified by Charlotte; her cell phone was recovered from Chipps's girlfriend's residence.
Chipps was arrested and indicted in Lawrence County for second-degree burglary, grand theft, obtaining possession of a controlled substance by theft, and four counts of identity theft; a habitual-criminal information alleged two prior felonies.
After a two-day trial in September 2014, a jury convicted Chipps of second-degree burglary and four counts of identity theft; he admitted two prior felonies. The Lawrence County court sentenced him to 20 years for burglary and concurrent 5-year terms for identity theft to run consecutively to the burglary sentence.
Chipps later pleaded guilty but mentally ill to a Meade County grand theft charge (after psychiatric evaluations indicated mental illness), receiving an 8-year sentence with 2 years suspended and a $10,000 fine; that sentence runs consecutively to the Lawrence County sentences.
On appeal Chipps raised: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel (various alleged failures), (2) Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual sentencing challenge, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence (denial of judgment of acquittal). The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel	State: counsel’s performance met constitutional standards; no obvious deprivation on record	Chipps: counsel failed to object to testimony/prosecutorial conduct, made damaging admissions, failed to present or preserve mental-illness defenses and verdict form, and failed to object to sentencing	Affirmed—on direct appeal Chipps failed to show prejudice or that errors were obviously deficient; many choices could be trial strategy and merit habeas review instead
Eighth Amendment proportionality of sentences	State: sentences are within statutory ranges and not grossly disproportionate	Chipps: combined sentences (20 yrs burglary + enhanced identity theft + consecutive 8 yrs) are grossly disproportionate given nonviolent nature and mental illness	Affirmed—appellate court applied Helm/Harmelin framework, found burglary and theft serious (recidivism relevant), sentences within permissible ranges and not grossly disproportionate
Sufficiency of evidence / judgment of acquittal	State: circumstantial evidence (video, vehicle plate, pawn records, recovered phone) supports convictions	Chipps: mental illness diminished capacity and insufficient direct evidence to prove identity and specific intent	Affirmed—viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence sufficient

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (three-factor proportionality framework under Eighth Amendment)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (limits on proportionality review; gross disproportionality standard)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (recidivism can justify harsher sentences)
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (recidivist sentencing principles)
State v. Garreau, 864 N.W.2d 771 (S.D. 2015) (state precedent on sentencing review and proportionality)