State v. Toavs
2017 SD 93
| S.D. | 2017Background
- On April 26, 2016, Berton Toavs shot and killed his girlfriend Eliza Edgins and friend Nathan Gann after learning Edgins planned to leave with Gann. Both victims died from gunshot wounds.
- Toavs confessed and was initially indicted for two counts of premeditated first‑degree murder; he later entered a plea agreement pleading guilty to two counts of first‑degree manslaughter.
- The plea agreement included a general waiver of appeal and a joint recommendation that the two manslaughter sentences run consecutively and be entered as separate judgments; the parties remained free to argue sentencing factors.
- At sentencing, the court reviewed the presentence investigation report, heard aggravating and mitigating evidence, and imposed consecutive terms of 110 years and 100 years (total 210 years).
- Toavs appealed, arguing the sentencing court abused its discretion by failing to consider his capacity for rehabilitation before imposing effectively life‑long consecutive terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Toavs waived his right to appeal by plea waiver language | State: waiver of "right to appeal herein" bars the appeal | Toavs: waiver language is ambiguous and does not clearly waive sentence appeal | Court: waiver ambiguous; construed against State; appeal not waived |
| Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by failing to consider rehabilitation | State: sentencing court considered appropriate factors and had discretion to prioritize retribution/incapacitation | Toavs: court focused on retribution and imposed an effectively nonrehabilitative 210‑year sentence without properly considering rehabilitation | Court: no abuse of discretion; court considered PSI, heard mitigation, and legitimately prioritized sentencing goals; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bausch, 889 N.W.2d 404 (S.D. 2017) (sentencing courts have broad discretion)
- State v. Talla, 897 N.W.2d 351 (S.D. 2017) (rehabilitation is one of several legitimate penological goals; courts decide which theory to prioritize)
- State v. Rice, 877 N.W.2d 75 (S.D. 2016) (sentencing court must consider defendant's character and history)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (plea‑agreement appellate waivers construed strictly against the government)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (discussing legitimate penological goals)