State v. Ekern

South Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Ekern

2001 SD 20, 623 N.W.2d 448, 2001 S.D. LEXIS 25

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

DocketNone

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2001 SD 20 (State v. Ekern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Ekern, 2001 SD 20, 623 N.W.2d 448, 2001 S.D. LEXIS 25 (S.D. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1.] An attorney with the Pennington County Public Defender once again claims a sentence violates the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. 1 Here, the claim is that a two year penitentiary sentence for third offense felony DUI is constitutionally infirm. This suggestion “borders on the bizarre.” State v. Winchester, 438 N.W.2d 555, 556 (S.D. 1989).

[¶ 2.] Ekern is a chronic alcoholic and has been arrested over thirty times for drug and alcohol related offenses. She has eight lifetime DUI arrests, and, without counting the felony DUI in this ease, two felony DUIs in the last five years. She has completed five inpatient treatment programs and still drinks and drives.

[¶ 3.] In this case, she pled guilty and received the benefit of a plea agreement. Her sentence was within statutory limits. After considering “the conduct involved, and any relevant past conduct, with utmost deference to the Legislature and the sentencing court,” Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶ 17, 577 N.W.2d at 580, it is abundantly clear *449 that there is not even a remote suggestion of gross disproportionality. 2

[¶ 4.] The judgment is affirmed.

[¶ 5.] MILLER, Chief Justice, SABERS, AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP and GILBERTSON, Justices, participating.

1

. All of the following cases have been summarily affirmed. See, 21497, State v. Kostaneski, 624 N.W.2d 358 (2001); 21368, State v. Herron, 622 N.W.2d 434 (2000); 21434, State v. Jeunesse, 622 N.W.2d 434 (Table) (2000); 21182, State v. Genco, 614 N.W.2d 828 (Table)(2000); 21238, State v. Stands, 614 N.W.2d 828 (Table)(2000); 21250, State v. Orem, 614 N.W.2d 828 (Table)(2000); 21112, State v. Verhelst, 608 N.W.2d 330 (Table)(2000); 20711, State v. Gear, 596 N.W.2d 734 (Table)(1999); 20607, State v. Meeks, 590 N.W.2d 709 (Table)(1999). See also all the cases cited in Justice Gilbertson's special concurrence in State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, 577 N.W.2d 575. We cite these cases not to contravene SDCL 15-26A-87.1(E), but to show *449 the Pennington County Public Defender's pattern with regard to this issue.

2

. Attorneys should be mindful of South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1. Meritorious Claims and Contentions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1.] An attorney with the Pennington County Public Defender once again claims a sentence violates the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. 1 Here, the claim is that a two year penitentiary sentence for third offense felony DUI is constitutionally infirm. This suggestion “borders on the bizarre.” State v. Winchester, 438 N.W.2d 555, 556 (S.D. 1989).

[¶ 2.] Ekern is a chronic alcoholic and has been arrested over thirty times for drug and alcohol related offenses. She has eight lifetime DUI arrests, and, without counting the felony DUI in this ease, two felony DUIs in the last five years. She has completed five inpatient treatment programs and still drinks and drives.

[¶ 3.] In this case, she pled guilty and received the benefit of a plea agreement. Her sentence was within statutory limits. After considering “the conduct involved, and any relevant past conduct, with utmost deference to the Legislature and the sentencing court,” Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶ 17, 577 N.W.2d at 580, it is abundantly clear *449 that there is not even a remote suggestion of gross disproportionality. 2

[¶ 4.] The judgment is affirmed.

[¶ 5.] MILLER, Chief Justice, SABERS, AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP and GILBERTSON, Justices, participating.

1

. All of the following cases have been summarily affirmed. See, 21497, State v. Kostaneski, 624 N.W.2d 358 (2001); 21368, State v. Herron, 622 N.W.2d 434 (2000); 21434, State v. Jeunesse, 622 N.W.2d 434 (Table) (2000); 21182, State v. Genco, 614 N.W.2d 828 (Table)(2000); 21238, State v. Stands, 614 N.W.2d 828 (Table)(2000); 21250, State v. Orem, 614 N.W.2d 828 (Table)(2000); 21112, State v. Verhelst, 608 N.W.2d 330 (Table)(2000); 20711, State v. Gear, 596 N.W.2d 734 (Table)(1999); 20607, State v. Meeks, 590 N.W.2d 709 (Table)(1999). See also all the cases cited in Justice Gilbertson's special concurrence in State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, 577 N.W.2d 575. We cite these cases not to contravene SDCL 15-26A-87.1(E), but to show *449 the Pennington County Public Defender's pattern with regard to this issue.

2

. Attorneys should be mindful of South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1. Meritorious Claims and Contentions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 SD 20, 623 N.W.2d 448, 2001 S.D. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ekern-sd-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack