Statute Annotations › South Dakota › S.D. Codified Laws § 22-6-1

S.D. Codified Laws § 22-6-1

Felony penalties and restitution: the cases that interpreted this section

Jurisdiction
South Dakota
Case notes
71
Cited in passing
103
Citing cases indexed
216
Case dates
1980–2026
Screened through
2026-04-02
Courts' treatment: live
No reviewed case has held this section invalid, preempted, superseded or repealed.
This reflects what the reviewed cases said, not legislative action: a later amendment or repeal by the legislature would not appear here unless a reviewed case discussed it.

174 citing cases reviewed of 216 in the citation index: 71 interpreted the section (annotated below), 103 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2026-04-02 may not have been reviewed yet.

Have a situation under S.D. Codified Laws § 22-6-1?

These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.

Later changes in law

Changes after the earliest notes below. A note stating a rule one of these changed is marked "Law changed since".

  • 2005-03-01 Roper v. Simmons barred the death penalty for offenses committed under age 18. Source
  • 2013 2013 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 105 amended § 22-6-1 so life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a Class A or B felony is discretionary, after consideration of youth. State v. Springer, 2014 S.D. 80, ¶ 14. Source
  • 2016 2016 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 121, § 2 ended discretionary life imprisonment for juvenile offenders. The South Dakota Supreme Court later read §§ 22-6-1 and 22-6-1.3 to forbid all juvenile life sentences, including for homicide. State v. Quevedo, 2020 S.D. 42, ¶¶ 33–34. Source

Class 1 felony sentencing

Section 22-6-1(1), as it applied to Class 1 felonies at the time, allowed a judge to impose a sentence up to life imprisonment; that discretionary maximum was not facially unconstitutional merely because murder carried mandatory life imprisonment.

State v. Kost · filed 1980-03-26(1)

Here the statute is not unconstitutional per se. The penalty imposed for murder was mandatory life imprisonment, while for manslaughter in the first degree, the judge was vested with the discretionary power of sentencing upwards to life.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(2) sets life imprisonment as the maximum, rather than mandatory, sentence for a Class 1 felony and provides for an additional $25,000 fine.

State v. Weiker · filed 1983-11-23(2)

As we stated, SDCL 22-7-8 mandates enhancement of a penalty to a sentence for a Class 1 felony and SDCL 22-6-1(2) fixes the maximum penalty for a Class 1 felony at life imprisonment with provision for an additional $25,000 fine. We point out, however, that such penalty is a maximum, it is not a mandatory penalty as was the case of Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(3) sets life imprisonment and a $25,000 fine as the maximum punishment for a Class 1 felony; a 100-year sentence with 30 years suspended is within that limit.

State v. Castaneira · filed 1993-06-23(3)

Eric Andrew Castaneira (Castaneira) pled guilty to kidnapping, SDCL 22-19-1(1), a Class 1 felony with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment and a $25,000 fine. SDCL 22-6-1(3). ... Castaneira's sentence is clearly within the statutory limits for the crime of kidnapping. SDCL 22-19-1(1); SDCL 22-6-1(3).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(3) authorizes life imprisonment for a Class 1 felony without a habitual offender enhancement.

State v. Stetter · filed 1994-02-16(3)

We note, as did the trial court, that under SDCL 22-6-1(3), the trial court was statutorily authorized to sentence Stetter to life imprisonment even without the enhancement provision of SDCL 22-7-7.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets life imprisonment as the maximum punishment for a Class 1 felony and provides no minimum sentence.

State v. Ramos · filed 1996-04-03

Since life imprisonment is the maximum punishment for a Class 1 felony under SDCL 22-6-1 and no minimum is provided, numerous options are available and a life sentence need not be “the only adequate retribution.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 makes a Class 1 felony punishable by life imprisonment.

State v. Lemley · filed 1996-07-24

The South Dakota Legislature has determined first-degree manslaughter is a Class 1 felony, punishable by life in prison.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(3) permits a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for a Class 1 felony.

State v. Goodroad · filed 1997-04-30(3)

The maximum sentence Goodroad could have received was life imprisonment. SDCL 22-7-8, 22-6-1(3).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(3) sets life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for a Class 1 felony, so a 75-year sentence falls within the statutory range.

State v. Knecht · filed 1997-05-14(3)

Knecht was convicted of SDCL 22-16-15(2), a Class 1 Felony carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. SDCL 22-6-1(3). Kneeht’s sentence is within the statutory range.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Roper v. Simmons (Mar. 1, 2005) barred death for offenders under 18, and 2013 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 105 made life without parole discretionary for juvenile Class A or B offenders.

Section 22-6-1(1) provides life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty for a Class A felony such as first-degree murder.

State v. Jensen · filed 1998-05-27(1)

Our legislature determined that first-degree murder, as a Class A felony under SDCL 22-16-12, should be punished by either a life sentence without parole or the death penalty. SDCL 22-6-1(1).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since 2013 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 105 ended mandatory life without parole for juvenile Class A or B offenders; courts must consider youth before choosing it.

Section 22-6-1(1) permits life imprisonment or death for a Class A felony; when the State does not seek death, life imprisonment is mandatory.

State v. Frazier · filed 2002-06-05(1)

First degree murder is a class A felony, punishable only by life imprisonment or the death penalty. SDCL 22-16-12; SDCL 22-6-1(1). Thus, because the State did not seek the death penalty in this case, a life sentence was mandatory.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for a Class 1 felony.

State v. Herrmann · filed 2004-04-21

The Legislature deemed each of these offenses to be Class 1 felonies carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. SDCL 22-6-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 helps set the authorized penalty for first-degree rape, which can reach life imprisonment without parole.

State v. McKinney · filed 2005-06-15

However, the range of sanctions authorized for first-degree rape is a mandatory minimum ten-year sentence to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without parole. SDCL 22-22-1.2(1), SDCL 22-6-1, and SDCL 24-15A-32. Therefore, because McKinney was not sentenced to life, his reliance upon the “most serious sanction” language of Bonner has little application here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(1) does not permit a sentence below death or life imprisonment for a Class A felony, even when mitigating circumstances exist.

State v. Corean · filed 2010-11-03(1)

But aiding and abetting aggravated kidnapping is a Class A felony. As indicated by the circuit court in pronouncing her sentence, “[t]here is no discretion; there is no leniency that can be given under the law. . . . The law is clear, it’s a Class A felony, life imprisonment and no possibility of parole under that sentence.” See SDCL 22-6-1(1) (“A lesser sentence than death or life imprisonment may not be given for a Class A.”).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Sentencing limits

Section 22-6-1(4) permits a maximum sentence of twenty-five years for a Class 2 felony.

State v. Reed · filed 1990-02-14(4)

Reed's sentence is within statutory limits for a Class 2 felony. SDCL 22-22-1, SDCL 22-6-1(4). Given Reed's past history of sexual deviance coupled with the inhumane acts on children leading to this conviction we understand why the trial judge sentenced Reed to the maximum twenty-five year sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1, read with § 22-16-15, permits a 45-year sentence for first-degree manslaughter.

State v. DuBois · filed 1981-01-28

Because the sentence is within the statutory limits, SDCL 22-16-15, SDCL 22-6-1, we will not review it on appeal.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 supplied the sentencing limits under which first-degree rape could result in life imprisonment and second-degree rape carried a twenty-year maximum.

Miller v. State · filed 1984-01-25

A first-degree rape conviction could re-suit in life imprisonment while the maximum sentence under second-degree rape was twenty years. SDCL 22-22-1 (1975); SDCL 22-6-1 (1975).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1's sentencing limits permit an 18-month prison term for third-offense D.W.I.

State v. Rederth · filed 1985-11-13

The sentence imposed was within statutory limits. SDCL 32-23-3, -4, and SDCL 22-6-1, -2.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

A life sentence for an offense elevated to a Class 1 felony falls within § 22-6-1’s sentencing limits.

Holiday v. Solem · filed 1986-04-02

Holiday's class 2 felony was jumped one step to a class 1 felony by South Dakota's habitual offender statutes, SDCL ch. 22-7. ... The sentence was within statutory limits. SDCL § 22-6-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(3) permits a life sentence for first-degree manslaughter, making a twenty-year sentence within the statutory limit.

State v. Burtzlaff · filed 1992-11-25(3)

With a first degree manslaughter conviction, Burtzlaff was subject to a sentence of life in prison. Instead, she received a twenty-year sentence which is clearly within statutory limits. SDCL 22-6-1(3).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets maximum prison terms of life for Class 1 felonies and 25 years for Class 2 felonies; neither class has a minimum sentence.

State v. Anderson · filed 1996-04-24(3), (4)

Class 1 felonies carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and Class 2 felonies, a maximum of 25 years imprisonment. SDCL 22-6-1(3); 22-6-1(4). In addition, a fine of $25,000 may be imposed upon each conviction. Neither class carries a minimum sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(5) permits a five-year prison sentence for attempted incest upon reconviction.

State v. Grey Owl · filed 1982-03-10(5)

Even though appellant was sentenced to serve the same term of imprisonment on the attempted incest conviction as imposed in Grey Owl I, under the applicable statutes he could have received a prison sentence of five years upon reconviction. SDCL 22-4-1(1); SDCL 22-22-19; SDCL 22-6-1(5).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

For offenses committed before July 1, 1982, subsection (7) set a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine.

State v. Dillon · filed 1984-05-29(7)

The maximum penalty at the time of appellant’s offenses, which all occurred prior to July 1, 1982, was five years imprisonment and/or a $5,000.00 fine.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(4) set a twenty-five-year statutory maximum for the sentence at issue.

State v. Holtry · filed 1982-07-07(4)

His sentence was the statutory maximum. SDCL 22-6-1(4).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(3) permits life imprisonment for first-degree manslaughter.

State v. Holloway · filed 1992-03-11(3)

For the manslaughter conviction, Holloway could have received life imprisonment pursuant to SDCL 22-6-1(3), and then, pursuant to SDCL 24-15-4, he would not have been eligible for parole.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets a maximum penalty for first-degree manslaughter of life imprisonment and a fine of up to $25,000.

State v. Cofield · filed 1984-07-18

Manslaughter in the first degree carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of up to $25,000.00.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for a Class 1 felony and 25 years’ imprisonment for a Class 2 felony.

State v. Peterson · filed 1996-12-04(3), (4)

The maximum sentence for first-degree rape of a child less than ten years of age, a Class 1 felony, ... is life imprisonment. SDCL 22-6-1(3). ... The maximum sentence for first degree attempted rape of a child less than ten years of age, a Class 2 felony, ... is 25 years imprisonment. SDCL 22-6-1(4). ... These sentences were not in excess of statutory limits.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets a maximum prison term of fifty years for a Class 1 felony and fifteen years for a Class 3 felony.

State v. Brim · filed 2010-09-15(4), (6)

Rape in the Second Degree is a Class 1 felony, and the maximum statutory sentence is a fifty- year period in the state penitentiary and a $50,000 fine. SDCL 22-22-1(2); SDCL 22-6-1(4). Sexual Contact With a Child Under Sixteen is a Class 3 felony, which is punishable by a fifteen-year sentence in the state penitentiary and a $30,000 fine. SDCL 22-22-7; SDCL 22-6-1(6). The trial court sentenced Brim to twenty-five years on each count of rape and fifteen years on each count of sexual contact to be served consecutively. Brim’s sentence on each offense was within the statutory maximum and is therefore afforded “substantial deference.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets a ten-year maximum prison term for Class 4 felonies and a five-year maximum for Class 5 felonies.

State v. Powers · filed 2008-12-10

The maximum penalty for a Class 4 felony is ten years imprisonment, while the maximum penalty for a Class 5 felony is five years imprisonment. See SDCL 22-6-1. Because Powers’s current violation is a Class 4 felony, his eight-year sentence was authorized.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets a 50-year maximum prison sentence for Class 1 felonies and permits life imprisonment for Class C felonies.

State v. Jones · filed 2012-02-01(3), (4)

Under the statutory maximum, the trial court could have sentenced Jones to 50 years for each of the rape convictions and a life sentence for the kidnapping conviction. See SDCL 22-6-1(4) (providing that the maximum penitentiary sentence for Class 1 felonies, which includes second-degree rape, is 50 years imprisonment); SDCL 22-6-1(3) (providing that the maximum penitentiary sentence for Class C felonies, which include kidnapping, is life imprisonment).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Subsection (5) authorizes a maximum prison term of twenty-five years for kidnapping.

State v. Delehoy · filed 2019-05-22(5)

The Legislature authorizes a maximum of twenty-five years in prison for kidnapping, and Delehoy received a sentence of twenty-two years in prison. See SDCL 22-6-1(5).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

A ten-year sentence with three years suspended is within the maximum authorized by § 22-6-1(7).

State v. Janes · filed 2026-02-18(7)

The circuit court’s sentence of ten years with three years suspended was within the legislatively authorized maximum sentence. See SDCL 22-6-1(7).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Class 3 felony penalties

Section 22-6-1(4) set the then maximum imprisonment term for a Class 3 felony at fifteen years.

State v. Phipps · filed 1982-04-14(4)

Each sentence constituted the then maximum penalty of imprisonment for the commission of sexual contact with a minor under fifteen. SDCL 22-22-7; SDCL 22-6-l(4).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets a fifteen-year imprisonment maximum for a Class 3 felony.

State v. Pack · filed 1994-05-18(5)

Pack's thirty-year sentence is clearly within statutory limits for two counts of rape of a minor.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Subsection (3) sets life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for a Class I felony.

State v. Milk · filed 2000-02-23(3)

Milk was convicted of SDCL 22-16-15(2), a Class I felony carrying with it a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. SDCL 22-6-1(3). Although Milk received the most severe sanction for his offense, his sentence is within the statutory range.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(5) permits up to 15 years in prison, a $15,000 fine, or both for a Class 3 felony.

State v. Mollman · filed 2003-12-23(5)

Vehicular homicide is a class three felony. SDCL 22-16-41. As such, it is punishable by a sentence up to 15 years in the penitentiary and/or a $15,000 fíne. SDCL 22-6-1(5). Mollman’s 15-year sentence was therefore within statutory limits and this Court will give extreme deference to that sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 22-6-1 requires life imprisonment for a Class B felony.

State v. Smiley · filed 2004-10-27

A Class B felony imposes a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. SDCL 22-6-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

A Class C felony carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

State v. Larsen-Smith · filed 2011-12-21(3)

The maximum penalty for a Class C felony is life imprisonment. SDCL 22-6-1(3). Larsen-Smith’s sentence is within the statutory maximum.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(5) sets a maximum prison term of 25 years for a Class 2 felony.

State v. Chipps · filed 2016-01-27(5)

However, Chipps’s sentence was enhanced based on his criminal history; therefore, Chipps’s offense is a Class 2 felony, SDCL 22-7-7, carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment, SDCL 22-6-1(5).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 permits a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a $50,000 fine for a Class C felony.

State v. Rice · filed 2016-03-02

First-degree manslaughter is a Class C felony, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of $50,000. SDCL 22-6-1, -16-15.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 permits up to two years’ imprisonment and a $4,000 fine for a Class 6 felony.

State v. Ainsworth · filed 2016-05-11

As in this case, after the third offense, simple assault becomes a Class 6 felony punishable by two years imprisonment and a $4,000 fine.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(6) permits up to fifteen years imprisonment, a $30,000 fine, or both for a class three felony.

State v. Hauge · filed 2019-07-24(6)

However, as a habitual offender pursuant to SDCL 22-7-7, Hauge's offense was enhanced to a class three felony, for which the maximum punishment is fifteen years imprisonment, a $30,000 fine, or both. See SDCL 22-6-1(6). The circuit court's sentence, while stern, does not exceed the punishment prescribed by our Legislature.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 authorizes up to life imprisonment and a $50,000 fine for a Class C felony.

State v. Ceplecha · filed 2020-03-04

First-degree manslaughter, a class C felony, carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of $50,000. See SDCL 22-6-1; SDCL 22-16-15. A life sentence, when reviewed against all other permitted punishments, is less than the harshest of all possible penalties—capital punishment (Class A felonies). It is also within the statutorily authorized sentencing scheme for first-degree manslaughter. SDCL 22-6-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(3) permits up to life imprisonment and a $50,000 fine for a Class C felony.

State v. Holler · filed 2020-05-20(3)

Class C felonies are punishable by up to life in prison and a $50,000 fine. SDCL 22-6-1(3). ... The 80-year sentence is well within the statutory limits, and the 40 years suspended offers Holler the possibility of release on parole in 20 years, under SDCL 24-15A-32.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(3) authorizes life imprisonment for a Class C felony and permits a $50,000 fine.

State v. Caffee · filed 2023-09-20(3)

The maximum penalty authorized for a Class C felony is “life imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed[.]” SDCL 22-6-1(3).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(3) sets life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for a Class C felony.

State v. Henry · filed 2024-05-29(3)

First-degree manslaughter is a Class C felony that carries a maximum possible penalty of life imprisonment. SDCL 22-16-15; SDCL 22-6-1(3). ... Such a sentence was within the statutory maximum, and there is no indication that the sentence was outside the range of permissible choices.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(3) permits life imprisonment and a $50,000 fine for a Class C felony, so a 75-year prison sentence falls within its authorized range.

State v. Bear Robe · filed 2024-12-11(3)

First-degree manslaughter is a Class C felony with a maximum penalty of “life imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed[.]” SDCL 22-6-1(3). On the scale of the nine felony classes in SDCL 22-6-1 (six numbered classes and three lettered classes), a Class C felony is the third highest in the range of all permitted punishments. Bear Robe received a sentence of 75 years, which is well within the authorized range of sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(5) sets a maximum prison term of twenty-five years for a Class 2 felony.

United States v. Steele · filed 2018-08-13(5)

The government charged Steele under the Major Crimes Act based on a violation of South Dakota’s first-degree-burglary statute, S.D. Codified Laws § 22-32-1(1), which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of twenty-five years in prison, id. § 22-6-1(5), -32-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Class 4 felony penalties

Section 22-6-1 sets a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment and a possible ten thousand dollar fine for a Class 4 felony.

State v. Habbena · filed 1985-07-31

Under SDCL 22-6-1, the maximum penalty is ten years’ imprisonment, plus the additional possibility of a ten thousand dollar fine.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 authorizes a maximum sentence of ten years for a class 4 felony.

State v. Sheridan · filed 1986-04-02

Error cannot plainly be found from a sentence which is well within the ten year maximum penalty which SDCL § 22-6-1 authorizes for a class 4 felony.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(6) permits a prison sentence of up to ten years for a Class 4 felony.

State v. Wooley · filed 1990-09-05(6)

Thus, as state asserts, the trial court was authorized to impose a separate sentence of up to ten years in the penitentiary for each of Wooley’s three convictions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(5) authorizes up to fifteen years in the state penitentiary and/or a fine of up to fifteen thousand dollars for a Class 3 felony.

State v. Janis · filed 1995-03-29(5)

The authorized punishment for a Class 3 felony offense is up to fifteen years imprisonment in the state penitentiary and/or a fine of up to fifteen thousand dollars. SDCL 22-6-1(5). Thus, out of a possible fifteen years in the penitentiary, Janis received a sentence of five years, which is well within the statutory limits.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets a maximum prison term of ten years for a Class 4 felony.

State v. Schmidt · filed 2012-11-07

The maximum penalty for a Class 4 felony is ten years in the state penitentiary. SDCL 22-6-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1(4) permits up to fifty years’ imprisonment, a $50,000 fine, or both for second-degree rape.

State v. Yeager · filed 2019-03-06(4)

Second-degree rape is a felony punishable by up to fifty-years imprisonment, a maximum $50,000 fine, or both.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Class B felony sentence

Section 22-6-1(2) provides life imprisonment in the state penitentiary as the sentence for a Class B felony.

State v. Kaiser · filed 1995-01-25(2)

According to SDCL 22-3-8(1), Kaiser’s sentencing must comply with that of a Class B felony, life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. SDCL 22-6-1(2).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets a maximum prison sentence of twenty-five years for a Class 2 felony.

State v. Deleon · filed 2022-04-06

Attempted first-degree murder and commission of a felony with a firearm are both Class 2 felonies and carry maximum prison sentences of twenty-five years. See SDCL 22-16-4; SDCL 22-14-12; SDCL 22-4-1; SDCL 22-6-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Constitutionality of mandatory life sentence

Law changed since 2013 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 105 ended mandatory life without parole for juvenile Class A or B offenders; the mandatory rule remains subject to that exception.

Section 22-6-1(2)'s mandatory life sentence for second-degree murder is not cruel and unusual punishment.

State v. Primeaux · filed 1982-12-28(2)

We do not believe that the mandatory imposition of life sentences without parole for crimes constituting second-degree murder is so cruel and unusual as to shock the conscience of the court. Moreover, in this case, the punishment is certainly not disproportionate to the crime committed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 permits a life sentence for voluntary manslaughter.

State v. Pulfrey · filed 1996-05-08

The South Dakota Legislature allows a sentence of life imprisonment for voluntary manslaughter. SDCL 22-6-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since 2013 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 105 ended mandatory life without parole for juvenile Class A or B offenders; courts must consider youth before choosing it.

Section 22-6-1 prescribes life imprisonment for a Class B felony; the mandatory life sentence for second-degree murder is not cruel and unusual punishment.

State v. Boyles · filed 1997-08-06

Similarly unpersuasive is the argument defendant's mandatory life sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We have held in the past that such is not the case, as it is mandated by legislative enactment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Habitual offender sentencing

Section 22-6-1(1), applied with the habitual offender statute, permits a life sentence for an offender with four prior felonies.

State v. Traversie · filed 1986-04-23(1)

Thus, under SDCL 22-7-8.1 and SDCL 22-6-1(1), we consider that Traversie could have been sentenced to life imprisonment and he is an habitual criminal.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Authority to order restitution

Section 22-6-1 authorizes a court to order a defendant convicted of a felony to make restitution in addition to the imposed sentence, including imprisonment.

State v. Wolff · filed 1989-03-22

SDCL 22-6-1 authorizes courts, in addition to sentence imposed, to order a defendant found guilty of a felony to “make restitution to any victim in accordance with the provisions of chapter 23A-28.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 authorizes a court to order a person convicted of a felony to make restitution to a victim in accordance with chapter 23A-28.

State v. Hurst · filed 1993-11-10

SDCL 22-6-1 and 22-6-2 authorize courts, in addition to the sentence imposed, to order a defendant found guilty of a felony or misdemeanor to "`make restitution to any victim in accordance with the provisions of chapter 23A-28.'" State v. Wolff, 438 N.W.2d 199, 201 (S.D.1989) (quoting SDCL 22-6-1).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 permits a court sentencing a felony defendant to order restitution to a victim in addition to the sentence.

State v. Henjum · filed 1996-01-24

Courts clearly have the authority to authorize restitution: "The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant who has been found guilty of a felony, may order in addition to the sentence that is imposed pursuant to the provisions of this section, that the defendant make restitution to any victim in accordance with the provisions of chapter 23A-28.” SDCL 22-6-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 makes felony restitution an obligation in addition to the prison sentence, enforceable after the defendant’s release.

State v. Gullickson · filed 2003-03-19

Second, the circuit court ordered restitution, separate and independent of Gulliekson’s prison sentence. SDCL 22-6-1 provides in pertinent part: ... Because restitution acts as an independent judgment to any other sentence imposed, it-must have an avenue for collection other than being tied to the conditions of probation, suspended sentence, or collection by file Department of Corrections while the defendant is incarcerated.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Authorized felony penalties

Section 22-6-1 does not authorize revocation of a municipal contractor license as part of a felony sentence.

State v. Neitge · filed 2000-03-15(7)

As such, the circuit court exceeded its bounds of authority when it revoked a contractor’s- license, as there is no language in SDCL 22-6-1(7) authorizing such a penalty.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 sets felony punishment limits that, for the offenses at issue, allowed life imprisonment on some counts and fifteen years on others.

State v. Craig · filed 2014-07-02

We agree, and indicative of that determination, the maximum punishment is life imprisonment. SDCL 22-22-1, SDCL 22-22-1.2, & SDCL 22-6-1. ... The maximum penalty for Craig’s remaining counts is fifteen-years imprisonment. SDCL 22-22-7, SDCL 22-22A-3(2), & SDCL 22-6-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 limits the sentence for a defendant who committed a Class A, B, or C felony before age eighteen to a term of years in prison and a fine of up to $50,000.

State v. Quevedo · filed 2020-07-22

As indicated above, the maximum sentence a juvenile can receive under SDCL 22-6-1 is “a term of years in the state penitentiary, and a fine of fifty thousand dollars . . . .”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 permits a life sentence for each Class C felony count of first-degree manslaughter.

State v. Toavs · filed 2017-12-27

The court could have granted the State’s request and imposed a life sentence for each count. See SDCL 22-16-15; SDCL 22-6-1. Yet, the court imposed a sentence that was substantially similar to that recommended in the presentence investigation report and that was for considerably less time than the maximum allowed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Juvenile sentencing

Law changed since 2016 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 121, § 2 ended discretionary life sentences for juvenile offenders; § 22-6-1 now limits them to a term of years.

Section 22-6-1 authorizes, but does not mandate, life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a Class A or B felony.

State v. Springer · filed 2014-11-12

Specifically, the Legislature changed SDCL 22-6-1 to authorize, but not mandate, a life sentence without parole for a juvenile offender if he was convicted of a Class A or B felony. ... We conclude that those statutory changes comply with Roper, Graham, and Miller.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 permits at most a term of years in prison and a $50,000 fine for a juvenile convicted of first-degree murder.

State v. Diaz · filed 2016-11-22

Under SDCL 22- 6-1, the harshest penalty a court can impose against a juvenile convicted of this State’s most severe crime is “a term of years in the state penitentiary, and a fine of fifty thousand dollars[.]”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 permits a term of years in prison and a $50,000 fine as the harshest penalty for a juvenile offender convicted of the state’s most severe crime.

State v. Charles · filed 2017-03-29

The harshest penalty a juvenile offender could receive for this State’s most severe crime is “a term of years in the state penitentiary, and a fine of fifty thousand dollars[.]” SDCL 22-6-1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 22-6-1 no longer mandates life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a Class A or B felony.

State v. Jensen · filed 2017-04-19

SDCL 22-6-1 no longer mandates a life sentence without parole for a juvenile offender convicted of a Class A or B felony.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
103 more cases cited this section only in passing

These cases mention the section without interpreting it (a string cite, a footnote, background). Listed so you can see the full citation record, not just the annotated rulings.

State v. Janisch, the court uses the penalty in § 22-6-1(5) to interpret the aggravated-assault statute; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Dennis, the court decides whether attempted and completed aggravated assault may be charged in one count under SDCL 22-18-1.1. It cites § 22-6-1(5) only to identify the Class 4 felony penalty. opinion →
State v. Brown, the court cites § 22-6-1 to compare penalties while deciding the purpose of § 32-4-5; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Curtis, the court cites § 22-6-1 to identify the sentencing maxima, but decides whether the sentences are constitutionally excessive, not a rule of this section. opinion →
State v. Brammer, the court cites § 22-6-1 for a penalty comparison while deciding whether rape and sexual contact are mutually exclusive; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
Heles v. South Dakota, the court mentions § 22-6-1 only to compare DWI penalties while deciding a constitutional right to contact counsel; it does not decide this section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Lohnes, section 22-6-1 appears only in a dissenting footnote, not in the court's majority decision. opinion →
Lufkins v. Solem, the court cites the section to describe sentencing background; it decides constitutional habeas claims, not a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Secrest, the court cites this section for the Class 4 felony maximum, but decides an equal protection challenge to the burglary and unlawful entry statutes, not a rule of this section. opinion →
Solem v. Helm, the Court cites § 22-6-1 for sentencing context but decides whether Helm’s sentence violates the Eighth Amendment, not a rule of this section. opinion →
State v. Grooms, the court cites § 22-6-1 to show the sentencing consequences of two habitual offender informations, but decides which information may be used under § 22-7-11. opinion →
Perdue v. State, the court cited § 22-6-1 for the unenhanced sentencing limits but decided whether the prior conviction could enhance the sentences under § 22-7-9. opinion →
Stacey v. State, the court mentions the statutory maximum as background but does not decide a rule under § 22-6-1. opinion →
Bryan v. State, the court mentions § 22-6-1(2) only while recounting the Supreme Court’s decision in Solem; it makes no decision of its own about that section. opinion →
State v. Shult, the only discussion of § 22-6-1(5) appears in the dissent, not the court's decision. opinion →
State v. Clothier, the court cites the section for the available punishment but decides whether the jury should have been told about sentencing; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Stapleton, this statement is quoted from an earlier decision. This court decides the attempt element of § 22-18-1.1(5), not a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Andrews, the court cites § 22-6-1(5) for the statutory maximum but decides an Eighth Amendment challenge to the sentence, not a rule of this section. opinion →
Cochrun v. Solem, the court mentioned § 22-6-1(5) as background but decided whether the habeas claims were barred by res judicata, not a rule of this section. opinion →
State v. MacY, the court decides the permissible length of probation under SDCL 23A-27-13; it cites § 22-6-1(8) only for the maximum prison term. opinion →
Matter of TJE, the citation appears only in Justice Henderson's special concurrence, not the court's majority decision. opinion →
State v. Dale, the court cites the section for the sentencing range but decides an Eighth Amendment proportionality claim, not a rule of this section. opinion →
Matter of Discipline of Janusz, the court mentions the Class 6 felony penalty as background but decides attorney discipline, not a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
In re the Application by Novak, the court mentions § 22-6-1 only as the source of the unenhanced penalty; its decision concerns enhancement under §§ 22-14-15 and 22-7-7. opinion →
Cody v. Leapley, the court cites the section as background to Cody’s interest in commutation; it does not decide a disputed rule under the section. opinion →
State v. Rust, this statement appears only in a specially concurring opinion, not the court's decision. opinion →
State v. Salway, the court decides how the habitual-offender statute affects sentencing; it cites § 22-6-1 for the felony classes without deciding that section’s own rules. opinion →
State v. Gehrke, the court cites § 22-6-1 for the sentencing maximum but decides whether the sentence violates constitutional limits, without deciding a disputed rule of this section. opinion →
Matter of Personal Restraint of Grisby, the citation appears in a passage quoted from Solem v. Helm, not in this court's own decision about the South Dakota section. opinion →
State v. French, the court cites § 22-6-1(8) to compare possible penalties; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Satter, the court cites the section’s penalty schedule as background while deciding the scope of depraved mind murder; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Bailey, the court cites § 22-6-1(3) to describe the charge’s possible punishment, but decides whether Bailey could withdraw his guilty plea, not a rule of this section. opinion →
State v. Moeller, the cited statement is in a dissent and describes a conditional outcome, not the court's decision. opinion →
Schaffer v. Edward D. Jones & Co., the court mentions the section’s penalty as a comparison when reviewing punitive damages; it does not decide a rule under § 22-6-1. opinion →
Brim v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & Paroles, the discussion of SDCL 22-6-1 appears in a dissent, not the court's decision. opinion →
Lewis v. Class, the citation and penalty statement appear only in a dissent, not in the court's decision. opinion →
Watkins v. Class, the only discussion of § 22-6-1 appears in a dissenting justice's footnote, not the court's decision. opinion →
State v. Puthoff, the court mentions § 22-6-1(5) only as background on the penalty for burglary; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
Grynberg v. Citation Oil & Gas Corp., the court mentions § 22-6-1 as a possible criminal sanction while reviewing a civil punitive damages award, but does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Yanez, the reference appears in a dissent’s comparative string cite, not in this court’s decision about § 22-6-1. opinion →
Brennan v. State, the section appears in a comparative list of state statutes; the court does not decide any rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Hinger, the court cites § 22-6-1 for the available maximum penalty but decides an Eighth Amendment sentencing issue, not this section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Davis, the court decides the requirements for enhancement under SDCL 32-23-4.6; it cites § 22-6-1(7) only for the Class 5 penalty. opinion →
State v. Springer-Ertl, the court mentions § 22-6-1(8) only as background for the possible penalty; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Nikolaev, the court decides whether the guilty plea complied with SDCL 23A-7-5; it cites § 22-6-1(5) only as background about the available sentence. opinion →
State v. Stahl, the court mentions § 22-6-1(6) as the source of the Class 4 felony penalty, but decides the sentencing challenge under other law rather than deciding this section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Richards, the court cites § 22-6-1(6) for the maximum penalty, but decides whether the plea procedure required notice of a mandatory minimum imposed by a different section. opinion →
Ramos v. Weber, the court cites the section to describe the available sentence, but decides federal habeas claims rather than any rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
Ramos v. Douglas Weber, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, the court cites the section as background to its Eighth Amendment analysis; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Stevenson, the court mentions the section’s maximum penalty as background, but decides whether Stevenson breached her plea agreement. opinion →
State v. Downing, the court decided how to prove value in a grand theft prosecution; it cited § 22-6-1(6) only to describe the penalty for a Class 4 felony. opinion →
State v. Hatchett, the court cites the section for the penalty ceiling while deciding a constitutional proportionality claim; it does not decide a rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Pasek, the court cites § 22-6-1(3) as part of the authorized sentencing range while deciding an Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge; it does not decide a disputed rule of this section. opinion →
Rhines v. Weber, the court cites § 22-6-1 as background while deciding whether a federal constitutional claim is plainly meritless; it does not decide this section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Blair, the court cites the section for the available penalty, but decides whether Blair’s sentences are grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment, rather than deciding a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
Hem v. Maurer, the court cites the section as background for the possible sentence but decides no rule under it. opinion →
State v. Buchhold, the discussion of § 22-6-1 appears in a dissent, not the court’s decision. opinion →
State v. Holsing, the court cited § 22-6-1 as background authority for restitution at sentencing. Its decision about later increases to restitution rested on other statutes and due process, not a rule of this section. opinion →
State v. Dubois, the court cites § 22-6-1(7) for the available penalty while deciding a constitutional challenge to the sentence; it does not decide a rule of the section itself. opinion →
State v. Overbey, the court cites the statutory maximum while deciding an Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
McCoy v. Commissioner of Public Safety, the court decides the classification of a Connecticut offense; it lists § 22-6-1 among other states’ statutes without deciding that section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Bruce, the court cited § 22-6-1(7) for the available penalty range while deciding an Eighth Amendment proportionality claim; it did not decide this section’s own rules. opinion →
State v. Jones, the court cites this section’s penalty while deciding whether the rape statute requires knowledge; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
Miller v. Alabama, No. The court cites §22-6-1 in a string cite illustrating state sentencing laws; it does not decide that section's rules. opinion →
Miller v. Alabama, the Court cited § 22-6-1 in a survey of state laws while deciding an Eighth Amendment issue; it did not decide this section's rules. opinion →
Miller v. Alabama, the Court cites § 22-6-1 as one example of a penalty provision while deciding an Eighth Amendment issue; it does not decide this section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Medicine Eagle, this statement appears in a separate concurrence, not the court’s decision. opinion →
State v. Webb, the court uses the statutory range as a factor in deciding an excessive-fines claim; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Webb, the court uses the statutory fine range in deciding an excessive-fines challenge; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Garreau, the court cites the section’s penalties as benchmarks for its Eighth Amendment analysis; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Coleman, the court cited § 22-6-1 for the statutory penalty ranges while deciding an Eighth Amendment claim; it did not decide a rule of the section itself. opinion →
State of Iowa v. Seats, the South Dakota provision appears in a string citation; the Iowa court does not decide its rules. opinion →
State of Iowa v. Seats, the court quotes § 22-6-1 in a survey of other states’ sentencing laws but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Anderson, the court cites § 22-6-1 for background on the maximum penalty but decides the challenge to the presumptive probation rule in § 22-6-11. opinion →
State v. McCahren, the court cites § 22-6-1 for the available penalty but decides an Eighth Amendment challenge and whether the sentencing court abused its discretion, without deciding a rule of this section. opinion →
State v. Sweet, the citation appears only in a dissent, not the court’s decision. opinion →
State v. Jensen, the court recounts the statutory change recognized in Springer, but decides Jensen’s Eighth Amendment and sentencing-discretion claims, not a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Madden, the court uses South Dakota's maximum fine to compare penalties across jurisdictions; it does not decide a rule under § 22-6-1. opinion →
Madetzke v. Dooley, the court cited the section to describe the plea agreement’s penalty range but decided an ineffective-assistance claim, not a rule of this section. opinion →
State v. Bassett, the court decides a Washington constitutional challenge. It cites § 22-6-1 only in a footnote listing other states’ laws and does not decide this section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Bassett, the court decides the constitutionality of a Washington statute; § 22-6-1 appears only in a footnote listing other jurisdictions' laws. opinion →
State v. Two Hearts, the court mentions § 22-6-1 only to describe the potential penalty in the procedural history; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Two Hearts, the court mentions the section’s penalty in a footnote as background to the plea agreement, but does not decide any rule under this section. opinion →
State v. Two Hearts, the court cites § 22-6-1 in a footnote explaining the potential sentence under a plea agreement; it does not decide a disputed rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Delehoy, the court uses the statutory maximum to assess an Eighth Amendment claim; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
– State v. Patterson –, the court cites this section in a survey of state sentencing laws while deciding a constitutional challenge; it does not decide the section’s own rules. opinion →
Coon v. Ravensborg, the court decides whether § 1983 is available to challenge the plaintiffs’ confinement; it does not decide the rules of SDCL § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Miles, No. The court cites § 22-6-1 to describe the sentencing spectrum while deciding an Eighth Amendment challenge; it does not decide the section’s own rules. opinion →
Roedder v. Young, the court cites the section to describe sentencing exposure in its background, but does not decide an issue about the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Shelton, the court cites the section’s penalty classifications as background while deciding an Eighth Amendment proportionality claim; it does not decide a rule of this section. opinion →
State v. Mitchell, the court cites the section to identify the available maximum sentence but decides whether the sentencing court abused its discretion, not a rule of this section. opinion →
Skinner v. State of Mississippi, the court reports the penalty cited in Solem; it does not make its own decision about § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Alvarez, the court cites § 22-6-1(3) to describe the potential sentence but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Quevedo v. Sullivan, the court cited the statutory penalty as a premise for deciding an ineffective-assistance claim; it did not decide this section's rules. opinion →
State v. Manning, the court cites the statutory penalty range while deciding an Eighth Amendment challenge and an abuse of discretion claim; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Robertson, the statement about this section’s felony penalty appears in a dissent, not the court’s decision. opinion →
State v. Black Cloud, the court decides whether the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment; it does not decide a disputed rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
Commonwealth v. Mattis, the court cites § 22-6-1 in a survey of other States' sentencing laws; it does not decide that section's rules. opinion →
State v. Foshay, the citation appears in a dissent, not the court’s own decision. opinion →
United States v. Jones, the court cites § 22-6-1(6) while deciding the federal supervised-release limit; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1 itself. opinion →
McPeek v. Fluke, the court mentions the possible punishment as background while deciding habeas claims; it does not decide a rule of § 22-6-1. opinion →
State v. Martin, the court cites § 22-6-1 for the available penalty but does not decide any rule of that section; it decides whether uncharged conduct could be considered at sentencing. opinion →
Peo v. Clark, the court uses South Dakota law as a comparison for Colorado's sentence but does not decide the rules of S.D. Codified Laws § 22-6-1. opinion →

Which of these rulings fit your facts?

Describe your situation under S.D. Codified Laws § 22-6-1. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace