#26787-a-LSW
2014 S.D. 16
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
****
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
STEVEN RENE HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
****
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
YANKTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
****
THE HONORABLE CHERYLE W. GERING
Judge
****
MARTY J. JACKLEY
Attorney General
ANN F. MINES
Assistant Attorney General
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff
and appellee.
KEVIN J. LOFTUS of
Kennedy, Pier, Knoff & Loftus, LLP
Yankton, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant
and appellant.
****
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON FEBRUARY 18, 2014
OPINION FILED 03/19/14
#26787
WILBUR, Justice
[¶1.] Steven Rene Hernandez appeals his conviction for fourth offense
driving under the influence. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[¶2.] On January 8, 2012, law enforcement observed Hernandez commit a
traffic violation and stopped the vehicle that Hernandez was driving. During the
stop, the officer learned that Hernandez’s driver’s license had been revoked and
observed that Hernandez was exhibiting signs of intoxication. As a result of his
observations, the officer conducted a variety of field sobriety tests and administered
a PBT test. The PBT test revealed that Hernandez had a blood alcohol content of
0.176. Hernandez was arrested for driving under the influence and driving with a
revoked license. 1
[¶3.] Hernandez was charged by criminal complaint on January 9, 2012,
with the crime of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage six
times within a ten-year period in violation of SDCL 32-23-1(1) and SDCL 32-23-4.7,
and in the alternative, driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage six times
within a ten-year period in violation of SDCL 32-23-1(2) and SDCL 32-23-4.7.
Hernandez was also charged with driving while his license was revoked in violation
of SDCL 32-12-65(1).
[¶4.] On January 12, 2012, a grand jury indicted Hernandez with the same
offenses. A part II information was filed alleging that Hernandez had been
1. Law enforcement dispatch informed the arresting officer that Hernandez had
five prior driving under the influence convictions.
-1-
#26787
previously convicted of driving under the influence on at least four prior occasions
within a ten-year period.
[¶5.] An amended part II information was filed on February 7, 2012. The
amended part II information alleged that Hernandez had been previously convicted
of driving under the influence on at least three prior occasions within a ten-year
period.
[¶6.] An arraignment on the charged offenses was held on February 7, 2012.
The parties then informed the circuit court that a plea agreement had been reached.
As a part of the plea agreement, Hernandez would plead guilty to driving under the
influence and to the amended part II information charging a fourth offense. The
circuit court accepted Hernandez’s guilty plea. Hernandez was allowed to remain
on bond pending sentencing.
[¶7.] A bond hearing was held on June 11, 2012, after the circuit court was
notified that Hernandez had violated the conditions of his release by consuming
alcohol. Hernandez was given another chance by the circuit court and was released
on bond under the same terms and conditions previously imposed.
[¶8.] A sentencing hearing was scheduled for November 27, 2012.
Hernandez, however, did not appear at the hearing. The State indicated to the
circuit court that it had information that Hernandez was engaging in other criminal
activity. As a result of Hernandez’s failure to appear and the representations made
by the State as to Hernandez’s involvement in other criminal activity, the circuit
court issued a bench warrant for Hernandez’s arrest. Approximately seven months
later, Hernandez was arrested on the bench warrant.
-2-
#26787
[¶9.] The circuit court conducted a sentencing hearing on July 3, 2013. At
that hearing, the circuit court acknowledged the Legislature’s passage of SDCL 22-
6-11, which requires a court to impose a sentence of probation for any of the offenses
set forth in the statute unless there are aggravating circumstances that require a
greater sentence. The circuit court found the existence of such aggravating
circumstances and sentenced Hernandez to five years in the state penitentiary with
three years suspended.
DECISION
[¶10.] Hernandez argues that while the circuit court correctly acknowledged
the applicability of SDCL 22-6-11 to Hernandez’s sentencing, the circuit court failed
to order probation for Hernandez. Hernandez contends that the aggravating
circumstances cited by the circuit court to justify its departure from the
presumptive sentence of probation contained in SDCL 22-6-11 were inadequate to
find that Hernandez posed a significant risk to the public.
[¶11.] SDCL 22-6-11, a portion of Senate Bill 70—the Public Safety
Improvement Act, was enacted by the South Dakota Legislature in 2013. See 2013
S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 101, § 53. SDCL 22-6-11 provides:
The sentencing court shall sentence an offender convicted of a
Class 5 or Class 6 felony, except those convicted under §§ 22-
11A-2.1, 22-18-1, 22-18-1.05, 22-18-26, 22-19A-1, 22-19A-2, 22-
19A-3, 22-19A-7, 22-19A-16, 22-22A-2, 22-22A-4, 22-24A-3, 22-
22-24.3, 22-24-1.2, 22-24B-2, 22-24B-12, 22-24B-12.1, 22-24B-23,
22-42-7, subdivision 24-2-14(1), 32-34-5, and any person
ineligible for probation under § 23A-27-12, to a term of
probation. The sentencing court may impose a sentence other
than probation if the court finds aggravating circumstances
exist that pose a significant risk to the public and require a
departure from presumptive probation under this section. If a
departure is made, the judge shall state on the record at the
-3-
#26787
time of sentencing the aggravating circumstances and the same
shall be stated in the dispositional order. Neither this section
nor its application may be the basis for establishing a
constitutionally protected liberty, property, or due process
interest. 2
[¶12.] The record demonstrates that the circuit court complied with the
dictates of SDCL 22-6-11 and imposed Hernandez’s penitentiary sentence. In
fulfilling the requirements of SDCL 22-6-11, the circuit court found the existence of
aggravating circumstances and made its findings on the record at the sentencing
hearing:
The court, as indicated, believes that SDCL 22-6-11 is applicable
in your case. You have been charged with and pled guilty to a
Class 5 felony, in light of the Driving Under the Influence
Fourth Offense and the Part 2 information for multiple offender.
And as a Class 5 felony, that statute states that the court shall
sentence such an offender as yourself to probation unless the
court finds aggravating circumstances that pose a significant
risk to the public and require a departure from presumptive
probation under this section.
The court believes in this circumstance, Mr. Hernandez, that
there are aggravating circumstances, that, in light of the
number of DUI convictions that you’ve had, in light of the felony
convictions, in light of your failure to appear at your last
sentencing hearing set in November of 2012, in light of your
repeated attempts to undergo treatment and not follow through
with that, and with, therefore, your statements now being, in
the court’s opinion, statements that you’re making not
evidencing a true change and intention to change your behavior,
but simply to seek lenience from the court, the court does find
that aggravating circumstances exist and that there is a
2. Hernandez pleaded guilty to fourth offense driving under the influence at an
arraignment hearing on February 7, 2012. Hernandez was sentenced for this
charge on July 3, 2013, three days after SDCL 22-6-11 became law. The
circuit court applied SDCL 22-6-11 to Hernandez’s sentencing. Neither party
contested the applicability of SDCL 22-6-11 to Hernandez’s sentencing; nor
did either party raise or brief the issue to this Court. Therefore, we do not
address the appropriateness of its application in this case.
-4-
#26787
significant risk posed to the public that does require a departure
from the presumptive probation required under SDCL 22-6-11.
The judgment of conviction also provides the aggravating circumstances the circuit
court found to justify its departure from the presumptive probation required by the
statute. It is clear from this record that the circuit court complied with the dictates
of SDCL 22-6-11 and imposed a sentence other than probation.
[¶13.] We decline to address the other issues raised by Hernandez in this
appeal.
CONCLUSION
[¶14.] Hernandez’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
[¶15.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, ZINTER and
SEVERSON, Justices, concur.
-5-