State v. Hauge, 932 N.W.2d 165

Background

Defendant David Hauge was tried and convicted of theft by exploitation for taking funds from his elderly mother while acting as her power of attorney; losses exceeded $5,000.
At arraignment Hauge waived his right to appointed counsel and elected to represent himself; the court conducted Van Sickle warnings and later appointed advisory counsel who assisted at trial.
Evidence included bank summaries by a Special Agent showing large withdrawals and deposits to Hauge’s accounts, Hauge’s admissions in a recorded interview, and witness testimony about specific transactions.
Jury convicted Hauge; at sentencing the court ordered a 15-year sentence (five years suspended conditioned on restitution) to run consecutively to an existing sentence and ordered $31,743.82 in restitution.
On appeal Hauge challenged (1) the voluntariness of his Faretta waiver and effectiveness of advisory counsel, (2) sufficiency of evidence and intent, (3) correctness of restitution amount, and (4) whether the sentence was cruel and unusual.

Issues

Issue	Hauge's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Sixth Amendment waiver	Waiver was not knowing/voluntary; advisory counsel ineffective	Court properly advised Hauge; advisory counsel appointment appropriate	Waiver was knowing, voluntary, intelligent; ineffective-assistance claim not shown on direct appeal; habeas available
2. Sufficiency of evidence / intent	Insufficient evidence of intent; some withdrawals paid taxes/nursing home	Evidence (records, admissions) shows intent and aggregated theft > $5,000	Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed
3. Restitution amount ($31,743.82)	Restitution did not account for payments to nursing home and tax payments; insufficient proof	Hauge failed to object at sentencing; court relied on exhibits and testimony	Issue waived for appeal; no plain error found
4. Eighth Amendment challenge	15-year sentence is cruel and unusual	Sentence within enhanced statutory maximum for habitual offender; not grossly disproportionate	Sentence not grossly disproportionate; Eighth Amendment claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right to self-representation)
United States v. LeBeau, 867 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2017) (request to self-represent must be unequivocal)
State v. Van Sickle, 411 N.W.2d 665 (S.D. 1987) (standards for waiver of right to counsel)
State v. Miller, 248 N.W.2d 61 (S.D. 1976) (trial court’s duty to determine knowing waiver)
United States v. Miller, 728 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2013) (review focuses on competence to waive counsel)
State v. Thomas, 796 N.W.2d 706 (S.D. 2011) (ineffective-assistance claims generally for habeas)
State v. Arabie, 663 N.W.2d 250 (S.D. 2003) (habeas process for developing ineffectiveness record)
State v. Dillon, 632 N.W.2d 37 (S.D. 2001) (ineffectiveness standard for direct appeal manifest usurpation)
State v. Guthmiller, 843 N.W.2d 364 (S.D. 2014) (de novo review of judgment-of-acquittal denials)
State v. Dowty, 838 N.W.2d 820 (S.D. 2013) (sufficiency standard — view evidence favoring prosecution)
State v. Plenty Horse, 741 N.W.2d 763 (S.D. 2007) (sufficiency test language)
State v. Wilson, 459 N.W.2d 457 (S.D. 1990) (defendant must be advised restitution may be ordered)
State v. Tuttle, 460 N.W.2d 157 (S.D. 1990) (hearing required when restitution amount objected)
State v. Roedder, 923 N.W.2d 537 (S.D. 2019) (failure to object waives restitution issue on appeal)
State v. Bausch, 889 N.W.2d 404 (S.D. 2017) (plain error review applied cautiously)
State v. Hofer, 757 N.W.2d 790 (S.D. 2008) (broad discretion in imposing restitution)
State v. Rice, 877 N.W.2d 75 (S.D. 2016) (de novo disproportionate-sentence review)
State v. Chipps, 874 N.W.2d 475 (S.D. 2016) (framework for Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (comparative proportionality framework)
State v. Traversie, 877 N.W.2d 327 (S.D. 2016) (threshold gross-disproportionality ends Eighth Amendment inquiry)