902 N.W.2d 787
S.D.2017Background
- Lee Ann Stenstrom pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance in exchange for dismissal of other charges and agreed to complete the drug-court program; the circuit court suspended a four-year sentence conditioned on successful completion and three years’ probation.
- Stenstrom repeatedly absconded from required residential placements, missed drug-court hearings and supervision meetings, admitted to using methamphetamine and marijuana, and had failed breath/drug tests.
- The drug-court team met multiple times and recommended termination from the program; Stenstrom requested that her attorney be allowed to attend team meetings, which the drug court denied.
- At the termination proceeding the judge heard evidence, allowed Stenstrom and counsel to present, then retired with the multidisciplinary team to discuss and vote; the team unanimously recommended termination.
- After termination, the State moved to revoke the suspension of execution of sentence; Stenstrom waived a contested revocation hearing and admitted violating conditions, and the circuit court reinstated the original four-year sentence (crediting 206 days served).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Statutory right to have counsel attend drug-court-team meetings | Stenstrom: drug-court participants have a statutory right to have their attorney present at team meetings | State: no statutory authorization to allow counsel at closed team meetings | Court: no direct appellate jurisdiction to review drug-court actions here; issue not preserved for indirect review at revocation because Stenstrom waived contesting termination |
| 2. Due process right to public proceedings of team meetings | Stenstrom: closing team meetings violated due process | State: team meetings are internal and not subject to public access in this context | Court: no direct review; Stenstrom waived challenge at revocation so not preserved for this appeal |
| 3. Right to counsel at team meetings (constitutional) | Stenstrom: denial of counsel at team meetings violated her Sixth and due process rights | State: procedural structure of drug court and lack of statutory authorization; counsel participated in open proceedings and cross-examination | Court: not directly reviewable here; no preserved indirect challenge at revocation |
| 4. Abuse of discretion in revoking suspension and reinstating sentence | Stenstrom: termination and full reinstatement were improper/augmentative | State: Stenstrom repeatedly violated program and probation conditions; revocation was permissible | Court: no abuse of discretion — circuit court independently reviewed facts, and revocation/reinstatement was within permissible range |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schwaller, 712 N.W.2d 869 (2006) (courts must take notice of jurisdictional questions)
- State v. Divan, 724 N.W.2d 865 (2006) (standard of review for revocation is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Rice, 877 N.W.2d 75 (2016) (defining range of permissible choices for abuse-of-discretion review)
- MacKaben v. MacKaben, 871 N.W.2d 617 (2015) (quoted on the abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Dale v. City of Sioux Falls, 670 N.W.2d 892 (2003) (jurisdictional procedure guidance)