*1
122
statements,
whole,
taken as
encour
imposition of sentence or least are resis imposition. tant suspended “The rhetorical,’ State’s ‘rhetoric was not and ‘transparent
instead amounts to a effort to IANNARELLI, Michael A. Defendant severity influence the of the defendant’s Appellant. and sentence,’ fulfilling without its end of the No. 24777. Hoek, 102, bargain.” Vanden 2006 SD ¶ 23, 724 (citing 864 State v. Supreme Court of South Dakota. N.W,2d Bracht, 573 Miller, (quoting United States v. Considered On Aug. Briefs (3dCir.l977) (Stern, F.2d Dis Decided Dec. Judge, dissenting))). trict The State plea agreement breached the when it did bargain
not fulfill its end of the in good
faith. preserve “In order to
integrity plea bargaining procedures public jus confidence the criminal system, petitioner generally
tice enti
tled plea agree to the enforcement of a
ment showing tangible harm
resulting from that breach.” Baldridge v.
Weber, 14, ¶34, Vaval, (quoting United States v. 4Ó4 (2dCir.2005)).
F.3d Because the
State plea agreement, breached the Mor
rison was not afforded a fair and reliable
sentencing proceeding. Morrison’s sentence is vacated
and the case remanded for resentencing by
a different judge. GILBERTSON, Justice, Chief SABERS, KONENKAMP, ZINTER MEIERHENRY, Justices,
participating. distinguishes prior Morrison’s case from satisfy process ficient Morrison’s due Furthermore, cases and resolves the rights. issue of the breach of question such plea agreement. Whatever "remedial” answer good does not resolve the breach of questioning may effect such have had is insuf- faith.
General, Pierre, Dakota, Attorneys South plaintiff and appellee. Roger Ellyson,' Watertown, W. South Dakota, Attorney for defendant appel- lant.
KONENKAMP, Justice. Michael pleaded guilty mentally but 01 to manslaugh- ter and degree rape. He was sen- years tenced to rape, the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, Iannarelli con- tends that grossly his sentences'were dis- proportionate to the crimes committed. We affirm because the sentences were not grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed.
BACKGROUND early In the morning hours of [¶2.] February Michael Iannarelli was having difficulty sleeping. He had suf- fered from this condition many years. Life was stressful in the Iannarelli home. Tammy, years, Michael’s wife of nine suf- myelitis1 fered from transverse which left body much of her paralyzed or numb. The family deeply was Tammy’s debt. medi- expenses cal inability and Michael’s to find work created financial turmoil. doing After small tasks around home, step- Iannarelli entered his A.S., daughter’s, bedroom and had a brief conversation with her. He informed A.S. “feeling that he had the had to do [he] General, Lawrence E. Long, Attorney something protest, Over A.S.’s Ian- evil.”. Wald, Deputy Attorney grabbed Sherri Sundem narelli digi- A.S.’s left breast and lin, myelitis neurological fatty insulating “Transverse is a disor- substance that covers der caused damage inflammation across both sides nerve cell fibers. This causes ner- level, segment, spinal system of one or interrupt cord. vous scars that communica- myelitis spinal The term refers to inflammation of tions between the nerves in the cord cord; spinal simply body.” http://www.mnds. transverse describes rest inflammation, is, position nih.gov/disorders/transversemyelitis/ de- spinal taiLdtransversemyelitis.htm(last across the width of the cord. Attacks visited Au- 11, 2008). damage destroy mye- gust can inflammation or be- asked about vagina. pair her of scissors. When A.S. tally penetrated mother, A.S. if emotionally upset replied and asked she was “in her came The authori- police. to call the to wait in she wanted her room.” Iannarelli told A.S. Iannarelli re- not contacted. police ties until the arrived. were the bedroom *3 and dur- sleep. morning In the turned to pot Iannarelli a of coffee [¶ 7.] made day, did not behave following A.S. ing the and dialed had Iannarelli anything happened. as if n indictment, An on February filed [¶ 8.] a bad night’s events had been believed the 26, 2007, charged one Iannarelli with count dream. or, degree in the of first murder alterna- February night, The next tive, murder, degree one count of second again sleep. to was unable Iannarelli rape. of degree and one count second a crash in his wife’s bed- hearing, After parties the Several motions were filed and room, checked in on her Iannarelli granted. included Ian- and These motions briefly. Tammy’s condition spoke with her request psychiatric for a examina- narelli’s couple to share made it difficult the State’s of intent to tion and the notice seek Later, to his Iannarelli returned bed. penalty. court also ap- the death The with a hammer and struck wife’s bedroom for a proved requests second He her in the back of the head. twice attorney to aid in and to his defense sever her from Iannarel- strangled then behind. trial, fearing from the the the murder li and he had blood on his shirt realized circumstances of crimes would be the two off in the bath- beard. He washed himself highly prejudicial Iannarelli’s defense. to Iannarelli carried the hammer room sink. it was him the bathroom. When with 11, 2007, after On October [¶ 9J there, still the hammer was discovered psychiatric evaluation determined that Tammy’s hair bloody and had strands of Iannarelli was not at the time insane stuck it. crimes, Iannarelli and the State en- plea agreement. part into a As a tered cleaning himself, After Iannarelli agreement, pleaded guilty Iannarelli neckties, bedroom with two entered A.S.’s mentally manslaughter ill to but head-wrap and a bottle of K-Y lubricant. rape. and degree degree The sitting to find on her A.S. awoke Iannarelli penalties agreement detailed the maximum stood and tied both of up floor. Iannarelli faced crimes: for' these' life to the bed the neckties AS.’s arms with possibility parole for man- that the head scarf. A.S. exclaimed and fifty slaughter years rape. wrists; Iannarelli did restraints hurt her avoided of a agreement potential death the bonds. screamed for not loosen A.S. penalty. her that no one help; Iannarelli warned her or to her aid. A.S.
would hear come sentencing, Before the court ob- him; stripped struggled against pre-sentence report, tained a additional clothes, poured off lubricant on night her evaluations, impact psychiatric and victim vagina her with body penetrated her statements. The evaluations finished, penis. When Iannarelli had that, suggest based Mr. Iannarelli’s ac- on ciga- he on A.S.’s bed and smoked a sat history, “high risk to tions and he is rette. community” whose for amenabil- prognosis finishing cigarette, ity “questionable After Ian- to treatment is at best.” prior felony A.S. He the knots so Iannarelli had no convictions. narelli freed had tied 21, 2007, tightly he had to with a December Iannarelli was sen- cut her bonds On years tionality2 tenced to 130 test when assessing the constitu- tionality of a rape, particular the terms to be served sentence. State v. Williams, consecutively. appeals.
427, 431. AND DECISION ANALYSIS a challenge [To] assess to proportionali- ty we first determine whether the sen- sentence for man- Whether appears tence grossly disproportionate. slaughter in the first or a 45- this, accomplish To we consider the con- year degree rape sentence for second involved, any duct past con- grossly disproportionate duct, with utmost Leg- deference to the crime committed and unconstitutional *4 islature and the sentencing court. If the Eighth under the Amendment. appear grossly sentence does not dispro- Iannarelli contends his portionate, no further review is neces- for manslaughter, sentence con sary. If appear sentence does sidered alone or with the consecutive 45- grossly disproportionate, an intra-and sentence, year rape constitutes a de facto inter-jurisdictional analysis shall be con- Despite receiving life sentence. than less ducted. We also consider gravity “the penalty the maximum authorized for either of the offense and the harshness of the crime, Iannarelli asserts taken indi penalty;” factors, and other tandem, vidually, in punishment or such such as the effect type of offense grossly disproportionate to the crime com society. has on in Eighth mitted violation of the Amend Guthmiller, (quoting Id. State v. 2003 SD prohibition ment on cruel pun and unusual ¶ 83, 43, 309) (citations 295, 667 N.W.2d ishment. omitted). It is a “rare in case which a comparison threshold “It of the crime commit is well-settled that ted and imposed the sentence employ very principles we limited leads to an our gross inference of disproportionality.” constitutional review of sentences. These ¶ Bonner, 30, 27, 1998 SD 577 at N.W.2d principles giving include ‘substantial defer (quoting 582 v. Michigan, Harmelin 501 legislature’s authority ence’ to the broad 2680, 2707, U.S. 111 S.Ct. 115 determine the types punish limits of (1991)). 836, Finally, L.Ed.2d rather ment; and the Eighth notion that ‘the evaluating than Iannarelli’s cumulative Amendment does not adoption mandate ” sentence, suggests, as he each count of the any penological theory.’ one State v. Du individually.3 sentence is examined ¶ Buch bois, 41, 15, 197, 2008 SD 746 N.W.2d ¶¶ hold, 15, 30-32, 2007 SD Garber, (quoting State v. 2004 SD 823-24. (citations omitted)). 674 N.W.2d
Consequently, a sentence within the statu An examination of tory rarely maximum will be underlying disturbed. conduct both of these counts applies gross dispropor- Id. This Court gross does not lead to an inference of Iannarelli's reliance on the "shock the con- Iannarelli states his convictions "as a 2. practical equiva- matter the fundamental [are] science” standard is unfounded. The "shock imprisonment parole.” lent of life As longer applicable the conscience” test is no matter, legal they are not. are These two Eighth challenges. Amendment See State v. separate separate penalties. crimes with two Bonner, ¶30, 13, 577 N.W.2d punishment for each must be considered Buchhold, individually. State v. ¶¶ 30-32, 823-24. consistently disproportionality. pre-sentence acted overlooks the re- family, they while against port psychological members of his evaluations which physically severity Both were slept brutality in their beds. discuss of his offenses, incapacitated, inability why either due to illness or to recall he com- acts, the actions of Iannarelli. His mitted these both effect that he was aware of the reports prospects conclude these circumstances have on his at the time he It wrongness of his conduct rehabilitation. is unknown what mo- Despite his mental appall- committed these acts. tivated Iannarelli to commit these afflictions, ing actions were not sudden or crimes. Iannarelli concedes that his “unexplainable.” instantaneous. took time be- conduct for both crimes is every step. aspects killing tween Iannarelli attacked These con- Tammy a weapon from behind with he tribute to the bleak Iannar- assessment for brought into the bedroom. In addition to elli’s rehabilitation. hammer, bludgeoning Tammy with the he pleads leniency strangled her with his hands. He then because formerly of his clean criminal rec- gore
washed the
from his beard and shirt
history
aspect
ord. Criminal
is but one
*5
attacking
before
A.S.
person’s profile;
it alone is not determi-
rape
The
was the second act of native.
[¶ 14.]
Other historic facts are also rele-
fourteen-year-
against
prospects.
sexual violence
the
vant to one’s
past
Iannarelli’s
old victim.
Iannarelli entered
room
voluntary psychiatric
A.S.’s
conduct includes a
already carrying
hospitalization
tools to facilitate his
due to his fear that he
crime. He
on the floor of her room
kill
might
Considering
waited
someone.
the men-
smoking
cigarette
until she awoke. Af-
tal
pleaded
illness under which Iannarelli
attack,
ciga- guilty,
history
ter the
he smoked another
his
of
prob-
mental health
bed,
bound,
lay
rette on her
where she
relating
highly
lems
to violence is
Only
crying.
sentencing.
naked and
then did he free
to
her,
police,
self-report.
contact the
As Iannarelli’s counsel
stated at
Beyond characterizing
pun-
sentencing
“...
no
I
there’s
case that
sentence,”
ishment
a “life
as
know of where a
great
Court has more
(sic)
argument essentially
that
maintains
the
discretion than
degree
first
man-
However,
sentencing
give adequate
slaughter.”
court did not
suggests
prospects
consideration to his
for rehabili-
that the circuit court abused its discretion
Weiker,4
tation. He relies on State v.
342 with
imposed.
only
the sentence it
(S.D.1983),
justification
Hinger,5
presents
N.W.2d
and State v.
against
sentence sentence
or the grossly disproportionate to the re-
A.S. prong
spective offenses. Because the *6 disproportionality has not been test
satisfied,
analysis
necessary.
no further
is
[¶ AMIOTTE, Appellant, M. Thomas GILBERTSON, Justice, 21.] Chief [¶ v. MEIERHENRY, and ZINTER and SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF Justices, concur. PAROLES, PARDONS AND SABERS, Justice, 22.] [¶ concurs Appellee. specially. No. 24836. SABERS, (concurring specially). Justice Court of South Supreme Dakota. I specially concur it is because to believe that the evalu- hard on Briefs Considered Nov. was not in- ator concluded Decided Dec. the times these sane he committed In repulsive light senseless crimes. circumstances, the facts and it seems
all of only is that Ian- reasonable conclusion was insane when he
narelli committed Nevertheless, the evaluator’s
offenses. average” given degree manslaughter analysis yet reached the for first 6. Because has not premature. prong gross disproportionality Dakota since 2004 in South second test, 73, ¶ intra-jurisdictional argument McKinney, See State his sentence times 476 n. 4. [the] is “over three