State v. Yeager

925 N.W.2d 105
South Dakota Supreme Court·Decided March 6, 2019·No. #28455·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

[¶16.] Generally, we will not disturb a sentence that is within the statutory maximum. See State v. Talla , 2017 S.D. 34, ¶ 10, 897 N.W.2d 351, 354. While a consecutive sentence may be harsh, "[t]he South Dakota Legislature has authorized the[ir] imposition...." See Red Kettle , 452 N.W.2d at 775. Yeager subjected M.Y. to years of sexual abuse in two different states, which she described to the circuit court as years filled with "suffering and confusion and just pure horror" affecting "every single aspect of [her] life." While the penalty is lengthy, we cannot say the circuit court abused its discretion. We affirm.

[¶17.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and JENSEN and SALTER, Justices, and SEVERSON, Retired Justice, concur.

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

State v. Yeager, 925 N.W.2d 105 (S.D. 2019).

925 N.W.2d 105 (State v. Yeager) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Lanpher, Jr.
2024 S.D. 26 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2024)
State v. Manning
985 N.W.2d 743 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2023)
State v. Deleon
973 N.W.2d 241 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2022)
State v. Mitchell
963 N.W.2d 326 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2021)
State v. Klinetobe
958 N.W.2d 734 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2021)
State v. Miles
956 N.W.2d 61 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2021)
State v. Seidel
953 N.W.2d 301 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. Snodgrass
951 N.W.2d 792 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. Taylor
948 N.W.2d 342 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2020)