State v. Krause, 2017 SD 16

Twin brothers Ryan and Brian Krause, both IT employees, stole equipment from employers (Valley Queen Cheese and Big Stone Therapies) and sold items online; Valley Queen reported roughly $180,000 missing.
The brothers accessed confidential employer data (payroll, bank-account information, personal and business financial statements, emails) and shared that information with each other.
Each pleaded guilty pursuant to plea agreements: one count of grand theft and four counts of unlawfully using a computer system; agreed restitution and title transfer were part of the plea bargains.
At sentencing the circuit court imposed four years for grand theft and four consecutive two-year penitentiary terms (one per computer-offense count), running consecutively to the grand-theft sentence.
The Krauses appealed only the computer-use sentences, arguing (1) Eighth Amendment disproportionality and (2) error in imposing imprisonment instead of presumptive probation without stated aggravating factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive two-year sentences for unlawfully using a computer violate the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual)	State: Sentences are within statutory range and not grossly disproportionate given property and privacy harms	Krauses: Sentences are grossly disproportionate; offenses were minor and defendants had mitigating factors	Affirmed: Under de novo review, sentences are not grossly disproportionate to the offenses and therefore not cruel and unusual
Whether court erred by imposing imprisonment rather than presumptive probation for Class 5/6 felony computer convictions (and failing to state aggravating circumstances)	State: SDCL 22-6-11 presumption inapplicable because defendants already received penitentiary time for grand theft; judicial probation unavailable once executive supervision attaches	Krauses: Court’s focus on punishment/deterrence did not establish required significant public-risk aggravators; judgment lacked stated aggravating findings	Affirmed: Because defendants were committed to executive supervision by grand-theft penitentiary sentences, probation was not presumptive or available and no aggravating-findings requirement was triggered

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (rejects individualized proportionality review in noncapital cases)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (framework for Eighth Amendment proportionality review)
State v. Chipps, 874 N.W.2d 475 (S.D. 2016) (South Dakota guidance on gross-disproportionality analysis)
State v. Rice, 877 N.W.2d 75 (S.D. 2016) (applying de novo review for Eighth Amendment disproportionate-sentence claims)
State v. Orr, 871 N.W.2d 834 (S.D. 2015) (limits on judicially imposed probation concurrent with penitentiary supervision)
State v. Garreau, 864 N.W.2d 771 (S.D. 2015) (discussion of disproportionality standard and its typical end point)