State v. Robert, 2012 SD 60

Robert pled guilty to first-degree murder of corrections officer Ronald Johnson at the South Dakota Penitentiary; he waived jury sentencing and the circuit court imposed the death penalty.
The crime occurred during an escape attempt in the penitentiary’s Pheasantland Industries building; Johnson was beaten, asphyxiated with plastic wrap, and his body concealed.
Robert was previously convicted in Meade County of kidnapping in 2006, leading to early prison confinement.
At a four-day pre-sentence hearing the court found aggravating circumstances and considered mitigating evidence; Robert repeatedly sought execution.
Robert waived appeal, but SDCL 23A-27A-9 requires independent review of the death sentence; amicus curiae was appointed to address issues not presented by the parties.
The court analyzed whether the death sentence was imposed without passion or prejudice, whether the aggravating circumstances were proven, and whether the sentence is proportionate to similar cases; it affirmed the death sentence and ordered execution proceedings

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether death sentence was imposed under arbitrary factors	State argues no passion/arbitrary factor influenced the decision	Robert contends his desire to die influenced the sentence	Death sentence affirmed; no arbitrary factor found
Whether statutory aggravating circumstances were proven	State proved aggravators 7 and 8 beyond reasonable doubt	Robert contested aggravating findings	Aggravating circumstances established; death allowed for review
Whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate	State compares Robert to similar capital cases and supports death	Robert alleges disproportion due to mitigating factors not fully considered	Sentence not disproportionate; proportionality upheld based on universe of comparable cases
Whether waiver of mitigating evidence affects review	State cites district court’s duty to review despite waiver	Robert’s waiver should foreclose mitigating-evidence consideration	Mitigating evidence still considered; waiver does not bar independent review

State v. Piper, 709 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 2006) (guides proportionality and sentencing discretion in capital cases)
State v. Rhines (Rhines I), 548 N.W.2d 415 (S.D. 1996) (defines universe for proportionality review and aggravation framework)
State v. Daphne Wright, 768 N.W.2d 512 (S.D. 2009) (illustrates proportionality analysis in Wright context for comparison)
State v. Charles Russell Rhines, 548 N.W.2d 415 (S.D. 1996) (see Rhines I; proportionality framework (duplicate entry kept for clarity))