State v. Robert
814 N.W.2d 122
S.D.2012Background
- Robert is under a death sentence in the Second Judicial Circuit and has not appealed within the time to this Court.
- South Dakota statute SDCL 23A-27A-12 requires this Court to review the death sentence for certain statutory criteria and proportionality.
- Robert moved to vacate this Court’s orders staying his execution and setting a briefing schedule, arguing this Court lacks stay authority.
- Robert contends SDCL 23A-27A-21 forbids any stay except by the Governor, and that his case is not an appeal under the statute.
- The Court holds the plain language and constitutional structure authorize a stay and treat this matter as appellate review by this Court.
- The Court emphasizes the necessity of staying to preserve the status quo to permit meaningful appellate review of the death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SD Supreme Court has authority to stay execution during mandatory sentence review | Robert asserts no stay power beyond Governor. | Court has inherent/legislative stay power to preserve status quo for review. | Yes; court may stay execution. |
| Whether SDCL 23A-27A-21 prohibits this Court from delaying execution | Robert reads 'no judge' to include this Court. | Legislature intended only circuit judges; this Court not prohibited. | Not prohibited; reading favors appellate review. |
| Whether this proceeding qualifies as an appeal under SDCL 23A-27A-12/21 | No notice of appeal filed; not an appeal. | It is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction reviewing a lower court decision. | It is an appeal-like proceeding under appellate jurisdiction. |
| Whether meaningful appellate review and proportionality considerations require avoiding an execution absent full review | Mandatory review could delay; finality risks irreparable harm. | Appellate review safeguards constitutional validity of death penalty. | Preserving meaningful appellate review supports staying execution. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Piper, 2006 S.D. 1, 709 N.W.2d 783 (2006) (constitutional interpretation of statute; meaningful review essential)
- Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (mandatory appellate review not constitutionally required but important)
- Rhines v. Rhines, 548 N.W.2d 415 (S.D. 1996) (capital punishment scheme nearly identical to SD)
- Gamet v. Allender, 208 N.W.2d 782 (S.D. 1926) (inherent power to stay pending appeal)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (framework allowing capital punishment with appellate safeguards)