State v. Lanpher, Jr.

#30404-a-JMK
2024 S.D. 26IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
****
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JAMES JOSEPH LANPHER, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
****
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
LAKE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
****
THE HONORABLE PATRICK T. PARDY
Judge
****
CODY J. MILLER of
Lammers, Kleibacker,
Dawson & Miller, LLP
Madison, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant
and appellant.
MARTY J. JACKLEY
Attorney General
ERIN E. HANDKE
Assistant Attorney General
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff
and appellee.
****
ARGUED
FEBRUARY 14, 2024
OPINION FILED 05/08/24
#30404
KERN, Justice
[¶1.] James Joseph Lanpher, Jr. pled guilty to two counts of aggravated
assault against a law enforcement officer and admitted to a part II habitual
offender information. The charges arose out of an extremely dangerous high-speed
chase during which Lanpher repeatedly fired weapons at pursuing officers. The
circuit court sentenced Lanpher to serve two concurrent life sentences to run
consecutively to sentences he was already serving for other offenses. Lanpher
appeals, claiming his sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth
Amendment and was an abuse of the circuit court’s discretion. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
[¶2.] The facts set forth herein are taken from the settled record, police
reports, and the contents of the presentence investigation report (PSI). At
approximately 2:00 p.m. on July 14, 2022, a South Dakota Highway Patrol (SDHP)
trooper attempted to make a “precision interdiction stop” to pull over Lanpher’s
vehicle which was traveling westbound on South Dakota Highway 34 (Hwy 34) near
the Minnesota border. Law enforcement suspected Lanpher of transporting drugs
from Pipestone, Minnesota, to South Dakota. He was driving a 2014 Chrysler
bearing license plate JIM JON. The Sioux Falls Area Drug Task Force (Task Force)
previously identified Lanpher as a source of supply for methamphetamine coming
into the Sioux Falls metropolitan area. As such, an electronic tracking surveillance
device was installed on Lanpher’s vehicle, which tracked his location to Pipestone
on July 14. The Task Force believed that Lanpher would be picking up a fourteen-
pound package of methamphetamine from his source in Pipestone.
-1-
#30404
[¶3.] On the morning of July 14, Lanpher, a lifelong Sioux Falls resident,
visited a friend’s house in Sioux Falls prior to leaving for Pipestone where he
encountered an old acquaintance, Bonner Juel. Lanpher and Juel soon left the
friend’s residence in Lanpher’s vehicle with Lanpher driving. Juel later claimed he
joined Lanpher to get high while riding in his car, but he did not know what
Lanpher’s plans were and was initially unaware that there were firearms in the
vehicle. Lanpher and Juel began traveling north towards Pipestone after driving
around Sioux Falls smoking marijuana. Before arriving in Pipestone, Lanpher and
Juel pulled over to smoke methamphetamine, as well.
[¶4.] After leaving Pipestone, Lanpher and Juel began traveling west back
into South Dakota. 1 The Task Force requested assistance from the SDHP in
stopping Lanpher. Trooper T.H. 2 was the first to encounter Lanpher around Egan,
South Dakota, and began following the vehicle, which was then traveling west on
Hwy 34. 3 Less than a mile before the Hwy 34 and Interstate 29 (I-29) exit, Trooper
T.H. turned on his emergency lights and sirens and attempted to initiate a traffic
stop of the vehicle. Lanpher did not comply and instead increased his speed,
1. No packages of illegal drugs were found in Lanpher’s vehicle. Juel later
claimed that Lanpher never met with anyone while in Pipestone. Although
Lanpher spoke to someone on his cell phone and they waited in a parking lot
outside of an apartment complex, the rendezvous did not occur.
2. At the victims’ and State’s request, the court ordered that the names of the
victims remain nonpublic to the extent possible in the PSI and at the
sentencing hearing. This Court has elected to designate the names of the
victims referenced herein by their initials only.
3. SDHP confirmed that Lanpher’s driver’s license was revoked at this time,
providing additional grounds for the traffic stop.
-2-
#30404
continuing west on Hwy 34 past the I-29 exit. As the pursuit was moving at high
speeds through towns and counties, additional officers were called to assist from
multiple agencies and eventually dozens of officers were involved. Lanpher
continued on Hwy 34 into Colman, South Dakota. Trying to evade pursuing
officers, Lanpher turned south on 470th Avenue in Moody County, west onto 237th
Street, south again onto 469th Avenue, and then back eastward on 240th Street to
I-29 near mile-marker 104. During this portion of the pursuit, Lanpher drove
erratically at dangerously high speeds on both paved and gravel roads, passing
through intersections without stopping, and began leaning out his driver’s window,
firing his rifle back at the pursuing officers and their vehicles. 4
[¶5.] Upon returning to I-29, Lanpher entered the southbound lane and
began traveling north at speeds varying between 80 to 100 miles per hour (mph)
into oncoming traffic. 5 Lanpher traveled the wrong way on I-29 for roughly five
miles before exiting west onto Hwy 34. From there, Lanpher returned to Colman,
driving through several city streets and rural avenues, eventually returning to Hwy
34 where he traveled west, reaching speeds in excess of 100 mph. Hoping to
distract the officers, while on 234th Street, Lanpher instructed Juel to throw
4. Initially, Lanpher fired his rifle into the adjacent fields, but, after law
enforcement continued the pursuit, he soon turned and aimed the rifle
directly backwards towards the officers. This gunfire broke Lanpher’s rear
driver’s side window.
5. At Lanpher’s speed, this put him and unsuspecting motorists at closing
speeds of 160 to 180 mph.
-3-
#30404
Lanpher’s shorter rifle, a .223 caliber Colt Model AR-15, and a blue box out the
window, which Juel did. 6
[¶6.] At approximately 2:30 p.m., Lanpher neared the outskirts of Madison,
South Dakota, in Lake County. Continuing at high speeds in the oncoming traffic
and center lanes and almost hitting multiple vehicles, Lanpher turned north on
South Washington Avenue and then west onto Southeast 1st Street. While driving
west on Southeast 1st Street in downtown Madison, between South Washington and
South Egan Avenues, Lanpher again leaned out of his window while driving and
fired back at the tailing officers. 7 Officers saw nearby pedestrians walking along
the street drop to the ground trying to take cover. Others in a nearby park also took
cover. 8
[¶7.] Lanpher turned north onto Ramm Heights Drive, a residential
neighborhood, from Southwest 1st Street after his vehicle had nearly run out of
fuel. Out of gas, Lanpher came to a stop about 150 feet north of the intersection
6. Lanpher also ordered Juel to shoot at the officers and yelled “it’s do or die,”
numerous times during the pursuit. Juel refused to shoot. After Lanpher
requested Juel hand him his longer rifle, Juel positioned the rifle in the
vehicle so that Lanpher could reach it. The blue box and shorter rifle were
later recovered by law enforcement. The blue box contained LED lights.
Mounted on the rifle was an optic sight that illuminated red, and the safety
was in the fire position.
7. Thirteen spent shell casings from Lanpher’s rifle were found in between
South Harth and South Egan Avenues. Department of Criminal
Investigation (DCI) Special Agent Hawks later obtained surveillance footage
from East River Electric Cooperative, which he described in his report as
depicting Lanpher using both hands to point his rifle backwards out his
vehicle window.
8. Three bystanders who were in the park later gave statements to law
enforcement detailing the incident.
-4-
#30404
and pulled his vehicle up alongside a truck facing south. The truck’s driver, civilian
S.H. 9, had his window down. Lanpher yelled at S.H. to give Lanpher his truck
immediately, and Lanpher opened his vehicle door with his M&P rifle in hand.
Upon recognizing the danger he was in and hearing the approaching sirens, S.H.
quickly accelerated south and turned westward onto Southwest 1st Street.
[¶8.] Troopers D.H. and J.A. were the first officers on scene at the Ramm
Heights Drive intersection. As Trooper D.H. turned north off 1st Street, he saw
Lanpher standing in the road, pointing his rifle and shooting at him. With little
time to react, Trooper D.H. returned fire through his front windshield with his duty
rifle, expending eleven rounds. Upon seeing Lanpher raise his rifle and hearing
gunshots, Trooper J.A. stepped out of his vehicle and drew his duty pistol. Lanpher
dropped his M&P rifle in the street and began running away. Trooper J.A. spotted
Lanpher running away at an angle from him and fired four shots at Lanpher before
he ran out of sight around the side of a house. As a result of the exchange of gunfire
several rounds hit a nearby house belonging to S.J. and P.J., striking their deck
railing and siding, with one piercing the picture window. Trooper J.A. ran over to
Trooper D.H.’s vehicle to check if he was injured. Except for being a bit stunned
from the exchange of fire and debris from his windshield, Trooper D.H. was
unharmed. Trooper J.A. then reported on his vehicle’s radio that Lanpher was
wearing a red shirt and was on the loose in the neighborhood. Juel, who did not get
9. The names of the civilians referenced herein, are also designated by their
initials.
-5-
#30404
out of Lanpher’s vehicle, had stuck his hands out of the passenger window to
surrender. Trooper J.A. noticed Juel at this time and arrested him.
[¶9.] As Lanpher fled the scene and ran in between houses, he attempted to
break into S.J. and P.J.’s house. Because of the bullet that had pierced the picture
window glass, the family was already gathered and heading for the basement to
take cover. Lanpher entered the garage and as he started to open the door leading
from the garage into the house, P.J., the father of the household, saw the door open
and slammed the door shut with his body weight and locked it. The couple and
their children took cover in their basement and called 911 to report the break-in
attempt, remaining there until law enforcement arrived and cleared the house. 10
[¶10.] Lanpher continued to evade officers and made his way across the
Ramm Heights neighborhood, moving towards the northwest. After coming across
an unattended four-wheeler in a backyard, Lanpher climbed on, put it in reverse,
but backed into a tree. He then abandoned it and continued moving on foot to the
northwest, moving into a shelterbelt. DCI Special Agent Jake Niedringhaus was
watching the northern perimeter of the area from his vehicle in the parking area
between the bowling alley and the movie theater. After a few minutes, Special
10. Other Ramm Heights residents also heard the gunshots and commotion. One
resident, R.M., was sitting by his home’s picture window when he heard
gunshots and saw Lanpher in the street. Other residents, T.M. and H.A.,
locked all the doors to their houses. B.P. was working in his basement when
he heard the shots. When he stepped outside his garage to investigate, he
saw Juel being arrested and officers instructed him to return inside his
house. L.C. was driving with a friend and her children on 1st Street in her
UTV when she saw Lanpher’s vehicle being pursued by officers. After
arriving at her nearby home, her group was still standing in her driveway
when Lanpher fired at the police vehicles. They ran inside L.C.’s house and
took cover.
-6-
#30404
Agent Niedringhaus spotted Lanpher emerge from the shelterbelt, moving north
towards the east side of the bowling alley. After being confronted on the north and
south sides of the bowling alley by officers, Lanpher was apprehended by Special
Agent Niedringhaus with the assistance of SDHP Sergeant Kristoff DeKramer.
Officers obtained search warrants for blood and urine samples from Lanpher and
Juel. These test results showed both Lanpher and Juel had methamphetamine and
THC in their systems at the time of the pursuit. A search of Lanpher’s vehicle
revealed five additional guns, a large amount of ammunition, and drug
paraphernalia. 11
[¶11.] Lanpher was charged by the State, via complaint, on July 18, 2022,
with four offenses: two counts of attempted first-degree murder, or in the
alternative, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, and two counts of
commission of a felony while armed with a firearm. Lanpher was indicted by a
Lake County grand jury for the same counts on July 20, 2022. Additionally, the
State filed a part II information pursuant to SDCL 22-7-8, alleging that Lanpher
had previously been convicted of five prior felonies including a crime of violence. He
11. The seven weapons involved in the incident included four handguns, two
rifles, and one shotgun. The firearms found in Lanpher’s passenger
compartment were a 9mm semiautomatic pistol, and a .40 caliber Sig Sauer
semiautomatic pistol. The firearms found in the vehicle’s trunk were a 12-
gauge American Tactical pump action shotgun, a .45 caliber Springfield
Armory semiautomatic pistol, and a .44 Magnum caliber Ruger Model
Redhawk revolver. The rifle Juel threw out the window on 234th Street was
a .223 caliber Colt Model AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. The rifle dropped by
Lanpher on Ramm Heights Drive was a .223 caliber M&P semiautomatic
rifle. Some of these weapons were loaded with ammunition, including the
two rifles. Law enforcement also found in the car $1,000 in cash in $100 bills,
a syringe that tested positive for methamphetamine, two marijuana and
methamphetamine smoking pipes, and several cell phones.
-7-
#30404
was appointed counsel and later co-counsel and appeared for arraignment on
August 3, 2022, entering pleas of not guilty to all charges.
[¶12.] On April 18, 2023, pursuant to the terms of a written plea agreement,
Lanpher pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement
officer, in violation of SDCL 22-18-1.1(2) and 22-18-1.05, a Class 2 felony punishable
by up to 25 years in prison and or a $50,000 fine. He also admitted to the part II
information, enhancing the possible penalty for each offense to that for a Class C
felony carrying a maximum sentence of up to life in prison and or a $50,000 fine. 12
Lanpher also agreed to pay restitution, costs, and fees. In exchange for the plea,
the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts in the indictment and two other
cases and to cap its sentencing request at 75 years of actual incarceration with
additional time suspended. The parties agreed that the court would retain
discretion to determine if the sentences should be served concurrently or
consecutively to each other and to Lanpher’s preexisting sentences. The court
ordered a PSI and set the matter for a sentencing hearing on June 14, 2023.
[¶13.] Prior to the hearing, Lanpher filed a sentencing brief arguing factors
in mitigation and comparing Lanpher’s conduct with that of nine other defendants
sentenced in South Dakota including three sentenced in Lake County by the circuit
court. After hearing argument from the parties, Lanpher’s allocution, and having
considered the PSI, which contained the police reports, videos of the high speed
12. Lanpher’s five prior felony convictions—all occurring in Minnehaha County—
were: possession of a controlled substance—Schedule I or II (2015), pimping
(2015), and in 2019, two convictions for possession of a controlled substance
and a conviction for aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer.
-8-
#30404
chase, letters in support of Lanpher, and victim impact letters, the court sentenced
Lanpher to two concurrent life sentences for each count of aggravated assault on a
law enforcement officer. 13 The court ordered credit for time served and directed
that the sentences be served consecutively to Lanpher’s other sentences. 14 In
fashioning the sentences, the court stated that it had considered all sentencing
factors, but particularly addressed Lanpher’s “moral character, mentality, age,
tendencies, inclination to commit crime, previous criminal record, and [ ] poor
rehabilitation prospects.” The court stated,
Your criminal record, however, is long, violent, and clearly
distinguishable from the cases your attorneys cited. Since 2001,
the only years you have gone without a conviction are ’03, ’07 to
’11, ’16 through ’18. And it’s interesting to note, again, that you
were under supervision from 2016 to the 2018 time frame. Your
criminal record includes theft; DUI; obstruction of an officer;
seven habitual offender convictions; possession of a controlled
substance; pimping and promoting prostitution; aggravated
eluding; aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer,
four times. In addition to your long list of convictions, you have
been charged multiple times with pimping; five times with
aggravated assault; threatening a law enforcement officer two
times; domestic assault no less than six times, maybe as high as
ten; simple assault, no less than five times, maybe as high as
eight.
...
The facts of this case prove beyond any doubt to this Court that
you have a dangerous and flawed moral character. Your
mentality and attitudes towards the rights and safety of others
is that you are willing to hurt anybody for your own gains. Your
violent and long record shows that your inclination to commit
13. See SDCL 24-15-4. Lanpher is still eligible for compassionate parole, as are
all convicts with life sentences.
14. At the time of the offense, Lanpher was on parole for the three 2019
convictions from Minnehaha County.
-9-
#30404
crime has no limits. Your history shows a complete lack of
moral character and value for human life.
[¶14.] The court also referenced the facts of the 2018 incident that resulted in
the three 2019 convictions included in Lanpher’s habitual offender information. In
Sioux Falls in 2018, law enforcement attempted to serve Lanpher with an arrest
warrant, using a task force to do so because Lanpher was suspected of committing
“aggravated assault with a gun, kidnapping, and theft of a vehicle.” The officers did
not attempt to arrest Lanpher until he had pulled his vehicle into a garage. An
officer then parked behind Lanpher so he could not get out. Lanpher proceeded to
back into the officers’ vehicle, ramming it a total of fifteen to twenty times.
Lanpher then began ramming his vehicle into the front of the garage in an attempt
to break through the wall and escape. While doing this, the vehicle became stuck.
The frictional heat generated from his tires spinning started a fire which burned the
building to the ground. Lanpher then attempted to escape the building on foot but
was captured.
[¶15.] The court also addressed Lanpher regarding his actions of July 14,
2022, stating:
In this case, you, frankly, did all you could to kill a law
enforcement officer or innocent citizen. You recklessly and
intentionally fired your weapon at the pursuing officers, both in
the country and in town; not only putting the officers’ lives at
risk, but the innocent bystanders in their homes, businesses,
and on the streets or sidewalks, all at risk with any crossfire
from you and officers.
You drove the wrong way down the highway, the Interstate,
through Washington Avenue in Madison and Colman, at speeds
up to 100 miles per hour. You ran multiple stop signs, each time
risking the lives of men, women, and children that might be in
your way.
-10-
#30404
The only reason there wasn’t a body count between your driving
and shooting is unexplainable luck. It is nothing short of a
miracle that there was no loss of life. . . . [Y]our conduct shows
this Court that you were willing to commit whatever offense it
took to get away.
[¶16.] The court concluded its sentencing analysis by summarizing its
observations of Lanpher’s actions, character, and criminal record:
Based on your moral character, mentality, age, tendencies,
inclination to commit crime, previous criminal record, I find that
you cannot be rehabilitated. A finding that you could be
rehabilitated would be a death sentence to any officer who might
encounter you in the future, along with the citizens of this state
that may get in your way.
[¶17.] Lanpher appeals the circuit court’s sentences, raising two issues for
our review:
1. Whether Lanpher’s sentence constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.
2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in the
imposition of Lanpher’s sentence.
Analysis and Decision
Eighth Amendment
[¶18.] “[W]hen the question presented is whether a challenged sentence is
cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment, we conduct a de novo
review.” 15 State v. Caffee, 2023 S.D. 51, ¶ 16, 996 N.W.2d 351, 357–58 (alteration in
original) (quoting State v. Manning, 2023 S.D. 7, ¶ 47, 985 N.W.2d 743, 757). “The
15. Inexplicably, the State contends that Lanpher has waived—by not citing
sufficient authority—his right to challenge his sentence as cruel and unusual
punishment or as an abuse of the circuit court’s discretion. However,
Lanpher cites the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, case
law and statutory authority to support his argument on appeal.
-11-
#30404
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits ‘cruel and unusual
punishment[.]’” Id. ¶ 16, 996 N.W.2d at 358 (quoting U.S. Const. amend. VIII)).
“This restriction applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.
[¶19.] “In determining whether a noncapital sentence is in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, we must decide whether the sentence is ‘grossly
disproportionate to its corresponding offense.’” Id. (quoting Manning, 2023 S.D. 7,
¶ 48, 985 N.W.2d at 757). “To do so, we first compare the gravity of the offense—
i.e., ‘the offense’s relative position on the spectrum of all criminality’—to the
harshness of the penalty—i.e., ‘the penalty’s relative position on the spectrum of all
permitted punishments.’” Id. “This analysis will ‘typically mark[ ] the end of our
review’ as gross disproportionality is rarely found.” Id. (alteration in original). “If
the penalty does appear ‘to be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense,
then we will compare the sentence to those imposed on other criminals in the same
jurisdiction as well as those imposed for commission of the same crime in other
jurisdictions.’” Id. (quoting Manning, 2023 S.D. 7, ¶ 48, 985 N.W.2d at 758).
[¶20.] We first examine the gravity of Lanpher’s offense. He pled guilty to
two counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer under SDCL 22-18-
1.1(2) and 22-18-1.05. On the spectrum of all possible criminal activity, aggravated
assaults are not generally considered the most serious; this designation is usually
reserved for crimes involving homicide. See State v. Ceplecha, 2020 S.D. 11, ¶ 59,
940 N.W.2d 682, 698. However, aggravated assaults, particularly those committed
against law enforcement officers, are high on the overall spectrum of criminal
activity.
-12-
#30404
[¶21.] Further, in addition to the underlying offense, Lanpher has a long and
serious prior criminal history, resulting in his habitual offender status. In cases
where the offender’s “sentence is enhanced because of the offender’s recidivism,
then the gravity of his past offenses also contributes to the gravity of the present
offense.” State v. Chipps, 2016 S.D. 8, ¶ 36, 874 N.W.2d 475, 488. In Chipps, the
State had filed a part II information and Chipps admitted to two prior felonies. We
found the number and nature of the prior offenses, “relevant to an Eighth
Amendment analysis of this sentence . . . . [N]ot only has Chipps demonstrated a
tendency to commit felonies, he has demonstrated a particular penchant for the
same type of crimes charged here . . . .” Id. ¶ 40, 874 N.W.2d at 490. Lanpher
admitted the five prior felony convictions alleged in the part II information, which
included two 2019 convictions for possession of a controlled drug or substance and a
conviction for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, the latter of which is
a crime of violence. See SDCL 22-1-2(9).
[¶22.] Lanpher’s actions resulting in these two convictions were gravely
serious and properly placed at the upper end of the spectrum of criminal conduct.
Considering the conduct Lanpher exhibited on July 14, as well as that
demonstrated in the past, we see this conduct as a grave offense compared to others
on the criminal spectrum. Lanpher’s actions, enhanced by his recidivism, are
representative of a callous disregard for the laws of society and human life in order
to further his own interests.
[¶23.] Next, we examine the harshness of Lanpher’s sentences. The most
severe punishments authorized by the Legislature include “death (Class A felonies)
-13-
#30404
and mandatory life imprisonment (Class A and Class B felonies).” State v. Rice,
2016 S.D. 18, ¶ 15, 877 N.W.2d 75, 80. Lanpher received two life sentences for
Class C felonies, without eligibility for parole. SDCL 24-15-4 (“No inmate sentenced
to life imprisonment is eligible for parole . . . .”). Such a sentence is second only to
the death penalty in terms of harshness and should only be imposed on defendants
for a correspondingly grave offense. Although the maximum consecutive sentences
that Lanpher could have received for the aggravated assault convictions alone was
50 years in prison and imposition of a $100,000 fine, his dangerous behavior was
coupled with a habitual offender admission including a crime of violence per SDCL
22-7-8. The Legislature has determined that the maximum sentence under this
provision for violent habitual offenders is that of a Class C felony—life in prison.
While such enhanced sentences are not often imposed, even under SDCL 22-7-8 this
is an unusual case. Based on our review of the record, we do not find the gravity of
Lanpher’s offenses grossly disproportionate to the harshness of his punishment.
[¶24.] Although Lanpher urges us to compare his sentence to those given to
other criminals in the same jurisdiction, “this argument overlooks the fact that we
would engage in a proportionality analysis only if we had determined [Lanpher’s]
sentence to be grossly disproportionate.” State v. Black Cloud, 2023 S.D. 53, ¶ 79,
996 N.W.2d 670, 688. Because the harshness of Lanpher’s sentence is not grossly
disproportionate to the gravity of his offenses, we will not compare his sentence to
those imposed on other criminals for the same crime within or outside the same
jurisdiction.
-14-
#30404
Abuse of Discretion
[¶25.] A circuit court’s sentencing decision is usually reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Caffee, 2023 S.D. 51, ¶ 26, 996 N.W.2d at 359–60. “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. ¶ 26, 996 N.W.2d at 360.
[¶26.] When this Court reviews a circuit court’s discretion, it does not
“substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of
a particular sentence.” State v. Toavs, 2017 S.D. 93, ¶ 14, 906 N.W.2d 354, 358.
Instead, “[c]ircuit courts have broad discretion in sentencing.” Caffee, 2023 S.D. 51,
¶ 27, 996 N.W.2d at 360; see also Rice, 2016 S.D. 18, ¶ 23, 877 N.W.2d at 83(“Within constitutional and statutory limits, the trial courts of this state exercise
broad discretion when deciding the extent and kind of punishment to be imposed.’’).
Nonetheless, “[c]ourts should consider the traditional sentencing factors of
retribution, deterrence—both individual and general—rehabilitation, and
incapacitation.” Caffee, 2023 S.D. 51, ¶ 27, 996 N.W.2d at 360. Courts should
weigh these factors “on a case-by-case basis” and may determine “which theory is
accorded priority” in a particular case. Id. Additionally, “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.’” State v. Mitchell, 2021
S.D. 46, ¶ 30, 963 N.W.2d 326, 333 (quoting State v. Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 36,
958 N.W.2d 734, 742).
-15-
#30404
[¶27.] Lanpher contends the circuit court abused its discretion by giving too
little weight to the mitigating evidence presented. At the sentencing hearing, and
in his brief, Lanpher’s counsel described him as a 41-year-old devoted father of
three. Based on his contacts with Lanpher, counsel informed the court that he
found him to be “soft spoken, kind and talented and generous”—someone who, when
not using methamphetamine, is “responsible, diligent and reliable.” Additionally,
counsel argued that the two year-period from 2016 to 2018, when Lanpher was on
parole and did not receive another conviction, demonstrated his ability to be
rehabilitated.
[¶28.] Lanpher also contends that the court failed to consider his statements
at the sentencing hearing about “his moral character, mentality, inclination to
commit crime, and habits.” Lanpher argued that he suffered from mental illness
and substance abuse at the time, which contributed to his crimes. He informed the
court that he now meets with a counselor to help resolve these issues. Finally,
Lanpher told the court that he was only intending to scare the officers by firing
weapons at them, and that he had no intention of injuring them or anyone else he
encountered while trying to escape. He argues this is corroborated by the fact “that
there was no damage to any police or patrol vehicle, no injury to any officer, no
damage in the immediate vicinity of the officers, nor in the backdrop immediately
behind the officers,” from the shots he fired. Lanpher contends that these facts
reflect positively on his mentality, habits, moral character, and show “if not an
aversion to commit crime, an aversion to cause harm to people,” and that the circuit
-16-
#30404
court failed to properly consider them. Based on our review of this record, we
disagree.
[¶29.] In imposing sentence, the court considered the details of the incident
including Lanpher’s reckless driving, the high speeds at which he drove, and the
danger he posed to all who encountered him on July 14, 2022. The court indicated
that it had studied and considered all sentencing factors and documents contained
in the PSI. During the sentencing hearing, the circuit court discussed Lanpher’s
criminal history, referencing the egregious facts underlying the 2018 incident in
Sioux Falls, where Lanpher rammed a police vehicle 15–20 times while it was
blocking his escape from a garage. The fact that the present offenses took place
after Lanpher’s conviction and sentencing from that incident demonstrates his lack
of rehabilitation and his ongoing inclination to commit crimes. We also note the
similarity of Lanpher’s conduct in the aggravated assault in 2018 to the facts of this
case. 16 Thus, the record reveals that the circuit court considered the appropriate
sentencing factors when reaching its decision.
[¶30.] The court did accord certain theories priority, which was well within
its purview. These were Lanpher’s moral character, mentality, tendencies,
inclination to commit crime, previous criminal record, and his poor rehabilitation
16. Although a comparison between Lanpher’s case and other aggravated assault
cases was unnecessary, the court distinguished the three Lake County cases
Lanpher presented, in support of his argument for a shorter sentence. The
court having presided over the three prior cases noted the significant
difference in the defendants’ prior criminal records, which were minor to
nonexistent, when compared with Lanpher’s long and violent criminal
history.
-17-
#30404
prospects. 17 Simply put, the circuit court’s finding that the aggravating factors in
Lanpher’s case outweighed those in mitigation does not amount to a fundamentally
wrong or impermissible choice. On the contrary, Lanpher pled guilty to these
aggravated assault offenses and the part II information and agreed to the State’s
proffered factual basis, which included Lanpher pointing firearms at officers and
pulling the trigger. By his own admission, Lanpher attempted “to cause . . . bodily
injury to another with a dangerous weapon,” which is substantiated by the other
witness and victim testimonies, surveillance video, and Lanpher’s behavior, both in
the past and on July 14, 2022. SDCL 22-18-1.1(2). While Lanpher argues the court
abused its discretion by requiring his sentence to run consecutively to his
preexisting convictions, this was well within the court’s authority. The Legislature
17. Lanpher argues that the circuit court impermissibly examined his entire
criminal record, including charges that did not result in criminal convictions.
In his view, the court should have only considered his past convictions when
crafting his sentences. He claims the court erred by considering charges that
did not result in convictions, violating the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, we have previously held
that “[a] court is permitted to consider uncharged conduct when acquainting
itself with the character of the defendant for sentencing.” State v. Tiegen,
2008 S.D. 6, ¶ 47, 744 N.W.2d 578, 594 (citing State v. McKinney, 2005 S.D.
74, ¶ 17, 699 N.W.2d 460, 465–66). Furthermore, “[c]ourts have recognized
that the broad range of evidence that may be considered at sentencing even
includes inquiry into ‘uncharged conduct or even conduct that was
acquitted,’” because sentencing determinations are made under a
preponderance of the evidence standard, unlike criminal convictions. State v.
Arabie, 2003 S.D. 57, ¶ 21, 663 N.W.2d 250, 257 (quoting U.S. v. Schaefer,
291 F.3d 932, 944 (7th Cir. 2002)). Here, the court principally relied upon the
2018 incident mentioned above which was supported by evidence adduced at
an earlier, pre-plea-agreement hearing to determine its admissibility under
SDCL 19-19-404(b). The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by
considering uncharged conduct.
-18-
#30404
has vested circuit courts with the authority to hand down consecutive sentences.
See State v. Yeager, 2019 S.D. 12, ¶ 9, 925 N.W.2d 105, 110.
[¶31.] Without additional context, a life sentence without parole could be
seen as an arbitrary or unreasonable penalty for an aggravated assault conviction
enhanced by habitual offender status in violation of SDCL 22-7-8. However, the
facts of this case reveal just how severe an aggravated assault committed by a
violent habitual offender can be and how dangerous Lanpher was not only to the
general public, but to law enforcement officers trying to engage with him in the
community. Indeed, the circuit court could have fairly regarded the true nature of
Lanpher’s actions as attempted murder by rejecting Lanpher’s self-serving
explanation that he was merely trying to convince law enforcement officers to end
their pursuit.
[¶32.] Here, Lanpher began his exploits on July 14, 2022, by operating a
vehicle while under the influence of both marijuana and methamphetamine. When
law enforcement officers attempted to stop him, he refused to comply and tried to
escape. During the pursuit, Lanpher began shooting multiple weapons at law
enforcement officers while driving erratically and extremely dangerously on city,
county, and state roads to elude them. He endangered all he encountered, either
walking or driving, by speeding up to 100 mph and weaving in and out of oncoming
traffic lanes.
[¶33.] In one of his most flagrant acts, Lanpher drove five miles northward in
the southbound lane on I-29, approaching oncoming vehicles head-on. With closing
speeds reaching 180 mph, this meant Lanpher and southbound traffic were
-19-
#30404
approaching one another at the rate of 88 yards a second. An oncoming driver 500
yards away had as little as 5.7 seconds to recognize this danger and react before his
vehicle reached Lanpher’s. In downtown Madison, bystanders fell to the ground,
taking cover in the library park and on bare sidewalks because of Lanpher’s gunfire.
This chase ended only because Lanpher’s vehicle ran out of fuel. Yet, even after
this, Lanpher refused to comply with law enforcement. He instead attempted to
continue running away by carjacking a truck where his vehicle came to rest. After
this failed, Lanpher again shot four times directly at officers’ vehicles in a dense
residential area—endangering many residents there, as well—and took off running
when the officers returned fire. Lanpher chose to run despite Juel surrendering.
[¶34.] Lanpher next tried to escape detection by attempting to break into a
nearby family residence, one that had already been struck by several bullets as a
result of the gunfire. The terrified residents were attempting to take cover in the
basement when the father of the household realized that Lanpher was in the garage
and opening the door to the house. The father foiled the break-in by quickly
throwing his body against the door to close and lock it. Next, Lanpher attempted to
steal a four-wheeler, and after this ended without success, he continued to flee on
foot. It was not until officers surrounded him with their firearms drawn that he
finally surrendered. As the circuit court stated, it is only by “unexplainable luck”
that Lanpher or someone else was not killed as a result of his actions. Lanpher’s
conduct towards officers and innocent bystanders could have easily led to multiple
fatalities, including the loss of his own life.
-20-
#30404
[¶35.] In short, our review of the record reveals extensive aggravating factors
which support the circuit court’s decision to impose two life sentences without the
possibility of parole. 18 While we do not make this determination lightly, we hold
the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in imposing life sentences under the
facts of this case.
Conclusion
[¶36.] In light of Lanpher’s violent criminal history and demonstrated
disregard for human life, his sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the gravity
of his offenses and thus does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Additionally,
given the seriousness of Lanpher’s conduct, the circuit court’s decision to impose
two life sentences was not an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
[¶37.] JENSEN, Chief Justice, and SALTER, DEVANEY, and MYREN,
Justices, concur.
18. We also note the circuit court’s authority to sentence Lanpher more severely
than requested by the State. “There is . . . no question that a sentencing
court is free to disregard the recommendations of the parties, as well as those
of the PSI author if, in the court’s judgment, a much higher sentence is
warranted.” State v. Mitchell, 2021 S.D. 46, ¶ 48, 963 N.W.2d 326, 337
(DeVaney, J., concurring).
-21-