885 N.W.2d 783
S.D.2016Background
- Yolanda Flowers pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Class 5 felony) and admitted a part II habitual-offender allegation alleging two prior felonies; a related misdemeanor was dismissed.
- The State recommended a four-year penitentiary sentence; the habitual-offender admission exposed Flowers to enhancement under SDCL 22-7-7.
- At sentencing the circuit court imposed a Class 4 felony penitentiary sentence (10 years, 6 suspended) and said nothing on the record or in the written judgment about probation, departure findings, or aggravating circumstances.
- Flowers appealed, arguing the court violated SDCL 22-6-11 (presumptive probation for Class 5/6 felonies unless aggravating circumstances are stated) and abused its discretion in departing from probation.
- The State argued SDCL 22-6-11 did not apply because the enhancement under SDCL 22-7-7 changed the offense to a Class 4 felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether presumptive probation under SDCL 22-6-11 applies when a sentence is enhanced under SDCL 22-7-7 | SDCL 22-7-7 enhanced the classification to a Class 4 felony, so SDCL 22-6-11 (presumptive probation for Class 5/6) does not apply | The enhancement changes only the sentence, not the underlying felony class, so SDCL 22-6-11 still applies to the Class 5 principal offense | Court held SDCL 22-7-7 enhances the sentence but does not substantively change the principal felony class; SDCL 22-6-11 applied |
| Whether the circuit court complied with SDCL 22-6-11 by stating aggravating circumstances when departing from presumptive probation | (State) Court implicitly treated enhancement as removing SDCL 22-6-11; no aggravating-factors requirement applied | Flowers argued the court failed to find and state aggravating circumstances on the record and in the judgment as required before departing from presumptive probation | Court found no aggravating circumstances were stated on the record or in the judgment; errors were more than clerical and reversed and remanded for resentencing in accordance with SDCL 22-6-11 |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowley v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 826 N.W.2d 360 (S.D. 2013) (habitual-offender statute increases sentence but does not change principal felony class)
- State v. Guthmiller, 677 N.W.2d 295 (S.D. 2003) (habitual-offender statute enhances punishment to next felony class)
- State v. Salway, 487 N.W.2d 621 (S.D. 1992) (habitual criminal status enhances punishment for principal crime)
- State v. Beckwith, 871 N.W.2d 57 (S.D. 2015) (clerical omission of on-record aggravating factors in written order can be remedied by amendment)
- State v. Whitfield, 862 N.W.2d 133 (S.D. 2015) (same remedial approach for failure to include stated aggravating circumstances in dispositional order)