State v. Robe

1

2024 S.D. 77

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. QUINCY MAURCE BEAR ROBE, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 30663-a-SPM

Supreme Court of South Dakota

December 11, 2024

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS SEPTEMBER 30, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA THE HONORABLE JOSHUA HENDRICKSON Judge

JOHN R. MURPHY Rapid City, South Dakota Attorney for defendant and appellant.

MARTY J. JACKLEY Attorney General PAUL S. SWEDLUND Solicitor General Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

MYREN JUSTICE

[¶1.] Quincy Bear Robe was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and sentenced to 75 years in the penitentiary. On appeal, he contends the circuit court abused its discretion when imposing that sentence and that the sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

[¶2.] In the early morning of March 19, 2022, Quincy Bear Robe, his girlfriend Shayla Bravo, and several of Bravo's friends convened in a room at the Grand Gateway Hotel. At some point in those early morning hours, Myron Pourier and his friends arrived at the hotel and entered the same room, although they were not invited.

[¶3.] An altercation between the groups ensued, during which Bear Robe and Isaac Runningshield discharged their guns. Pourier died from two .40 caliber gunshot wounds he received during the confrontation. A few minutes after the shooting, law enforcement found Bear Robe near the Grand Gateway Hotel with a .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun in his possession.

[¶4.] After being detained in the back of the patrol car, Bear Robe took out his phone, called a friend, and bragged that he "caught a body" and that he and Runningshield "popped a nigga." When asked why he shot Pourier Bear Robe told his friend, "'cause the nigga got in my face talking shit, bro." Bear Robe said he fired his gun twice, and he thought one shot hit Pourier in the head. Bear Robe told his friend he was caught with the gun his friend gave him.

[¶5.] On April 6, 2022, three days after Pourier's death, Bear Robe was indicted and charged with second-degree murder (SDCL 22-16-7) and the commission of a felony with a firearm (SDCL 22-14-12). On August 10, 2022, a grand jury issued a superseding indictment, adding a charge of first-degree murder (SDCL 22-16-4(1)). Bear Robe accepted a plea agreement to plead guilty to first-degree manslaughter (SDCL 22-16-15(3)) in exchange for the State requesting a prison sentence of 75 years with ten years suspended.

[¶6.] On October 23, 2023, the circuit court accepted Bear Robe's guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI). The PSI stated Bear Robe had no prior criminal record but said he was charged with simple assault in a mutual combat situation while in jail awaiting trial in this case. The PSI noted Bear Robe's young age and highlighted several mitigating factors from Bear Robe's childhood. It also noted that Bear Robe grew up in a chaotic home environment, was raised by various family members in multiple different communities, and attended ten different schools. The PSI detailed the mental, physical, and emotional abuse Bear Robe experienced as a child.

[¶7.] Additionally, he experienced mental health conditions and was medicated for a variety of issues, including ADHD, anxiety depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Bear Robe obtained counseling because of many suicide attempts. The PSI listed other mitigating factors, like Bear Robe being remorseful, acknowledging he needed treatment, and stating he would do whatever the court asked of him to become a better person.

[¶8.] Various family, friends, and community members wrote letters on his behalf stating that he was a good person. His family members said he was a protective, dedicated, honest, caring and goal-oriented person. His high school principal and counselor wrote letters stating he was a good student, was on track to graduate in May, was a leader, and was never aggressive or threatening, though he could be impulsive. Three workers from the Rapid City Club for Boys characterized Bear Robe as a young man of unusually good character, a fine man, and one of the last people they thought would be in this trouble.

[¶9.] On February 26, 2024, the circuit court sentenced Bear Robe to 75 years in the penitentiary with no time suspended. The circuit court explained:

But the way the Court sees this action and the factors I consider in the mitigation are the Defendant's age and being young himself, 19 at the time of the offense, and the lack of a criminal history as just described by defense counsel, that's the [mitigation] I look at. And the factors in aggravation essentially are, the death of the victim; a senseless act of violence; intoxication and possessing a gun in that manner, simply put, the way I see this, in our society today there's been a shocking casual escalation in these types of situations where young people are involved with alcohol and guns and it can't be tolerated. Any time we see this as purely a deterrent effect I have to look at that and send a strong message that this isn't tolerated.

You did plead guilty to a manslaughter charge, and I do believe a lengthy penitentiary sentence is appropriate here. The State has recommended 75 years with ten suspended. I understand your argument. I have contemplated that seriously, and it's going to be the judgment of the Court that you be sentenced to a 75 year penitentiary sentence. I'm not going to suspend any time. ^[*]

[¶10.] Bear Robe appeals and raises two issues regarding his sentence:

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it imposed the sentence.

2. Whether the sentence was a cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Decision

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it imposed the sentence.

[¶11.] "We generally review a circuit court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion." State v. Manning, 2023 S.D. 7, ¶ 51, 985 N.W.2d 743, 758 (quoting State v. Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 26, 958 N.W.2d 734, 740). "An abuse of discretion is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable." Id. (quoting Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 26, 958 N.W.2d at 740).

[¶12.] "Circuit courts have broad discretion in sentencing." Id. ¶ 52, 985 N.W.2d at 758 (quoting Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 28, 958 N.W.2d at 741). "We have said that 'circuit courts must look at both the person before them and the nature and impact of the offense.'" State v. Caffee, 2023 S.D. 51, ¶ 28, 996 N.W.2d 351, 360 (quoting State v. Mitchell, 2021 S.D. 46, ¶ 29, 963 N.W.2d 326, 333). "[T]he sentencing court should acquire a thorough acquaintance with the character and history of the [person] before it[,]" and "should have access to 'the fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life and characteristics. Information which should be available to the court includes general moral character, mentality, habits, social environment, tendencies, age, aversion or inclination to commit crime, life, family, occupation, and previous criminal record.'" Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 29, 958 N.W.2d at 741 (internal citations omitted) (quoting State v. Holler, 2020 S.D. 28, ¶ 18, 944 N.W.2d 339, 344).

[¶13.] "Circuit 'courts must consider sentencing evidence tending to mitigate or aggravate the severity of a defendant's conduct and its impact on others. Sentencing courts are often required, in this regard, to accurately assess the 'true nature of the offense."' Caffee, 2023 S.D. 51, ¶ 28, 996 N.W.2d at 360 (citation omitted). "[A] circuit court can accept [a] reduced manslaughter plea as provident and still rely upon additional evidence adduced at sentencing to determine the actual level of culpability in order to formulate an appropriate sentence." Mitchell, 2021 S.D. 46, ¶ 32 n.7, 963 N.W.2d at 333 n.7. Circuit courts are allowed to rely on "an 'extensive sentencing record' to assess the nature of a defendant's offense . . . not limited to the information contained in a stipulated factual basis statement used to support a defendant's guilty plea." Id. ¶ 32, 963 N.W.2d at 333 (quoting Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 36 n.6, 958 N.W.2d at 742 n.6).

[¶14.] Bear Robe argues that the circuit court sentenced him almost exclusively based on the general deterrence consideration and disregarded mitigating evidence. Bear Robe also disagrees with how much weight each factor was given. Bear Robe additionally contends the circuit court sentenced him as part of a class rather than as an individual.

[¶15.] "Courts should consider the traditional sentencing factors of retribution, deterrence-both individual and general-rehabilitation, and incapacitation." Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 28, 958 N.W.2d at 741. "Courts should weigh these factors 'on a case-by-case basis[.]'" Caffee, 2023 S.D. 51, ¶ 27, 996 N.W.2d at 360 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). "Courts may determine 'which theory is accorded priority' in a particular case." Id. (quoting State v. Talla, 2017 S.D. 34, ¶ 14, 897 N.W.2d 351, 355).

[¶16.] The circuit court acquired a thorough acquaintance with Bear Robe's character and history, including information concerning his life and characteristics. It read the PSI demonstrated a familiarity with the case, and was presented with aggravating and mitigating evidence. The circuit court stated, "I have reviewed this case thoroughly and everything that is contained in the Court file and the numerous victim's letters that have been provided prior to sentencing" and, "I understand...