State v. Stenstrom, 2017 SD 61. After several drug-related charges, Stenstrom and the State reached a deal in which Stenstrom agreed to plead guilty to one count of possessing a controlled substance, and, in exchange, the State agreed to drop other charged offenses. The agreement also required Stenstrom to successfully complete the drug-court program. The circuit court imposed a four-year sentence but suspended its execution on the condition that Stenstrom complete the program and undergo three years of supervised probation. When Stenstrom left her sober-living home and failed to return, and then failed to attend hearings and meetings, a warrant was issued for her arrest. She subsequently told her court-services officer that she had used meth and marijuana during her absence. When her court services officer filed a drug-court termination report, she was permitted to remain in the program. She continued, however, to struggle with the program’s requirements. After at least two more drug-court team meetings and drug-court termination reports, and several more criminal charges, the circuit court held a hearing to determine whether Stenstrom had violated the requirements of the drug-court program, and whether she should be terminated from the program. The drug-court team unanimously recommended terminating her from the program. The State thus filed a motion to revoke the suspension of execution of her sentence. At the hearing on that motion, Stenstrom waived her rights and admitted to violating the conditions of her suspended sentence, and the circuit court therefore reinstated her original four-year sentence. Stenstrom appealed her termination from the drug-court program and subsequent revocation of execution of a four-year sentence, arguing that the drug court violated her statutory and constitutional rights to due process and counsel by denying her request to permit her attorney to attend drug-court meetings. She also argued that her termination from the drug-court program was error. On appeal, the Court first noted that it did not have jurisdiction to directly review the drug court’s actions, but that it did have appellate jurisdiction over the circuit court’s decision to revoke the suspension of execution of Stenstrom’s sentence. Because Stenstrom waived the right to contest revocation, the only question for appeal was whether the circuit court abused its discretion by revoking the suspension of execution of Stenstrom’s sentence and reinstating her original, four-year sentence. On that question, the Court, per Chief Justice Gilbertson, affirmed.