State v. Garreau, 2015 SD 36

On Oct. 30–31, 2013, Garreau led law enforcement on a high-speed chase, during which his cousin shot at U.S. marshals and later died from wounds sustained in a shootout.
Garreau returned, armed himself, hid in a friend’s mobile home, and after a multi-hour standoff fired through a bathroom door and wall, striking Officer Cole Martin in the chest (body armor prevented serious injury).
Garreau pleaded guilty to one count of attempted first‑degree murder (Officer Martin); the State dismissed a second attempted‑murder count (Officer Waller) and agreed to recommend a 20‑year sentence.
The circuit court sentenced Garreau to the statutory maximum of 25 years. Garreau objected pre‑sentencing to (1) inclusion of a federal presentence report in the state PSI, and (2) being questioned by court services without counsel; he also challenged the sentence under the Eighth Amendment.
The circuit court denied objections and imposed the 25‑year sentence; Garreau appealed raising Eighth Amendment proportionality, due process (federal PSI inclusion), and Fifth/Sixth Amendment (presentence interview) claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Eighth Amendment proportionality of 25‑year sentence	State: sentence within statutory limits and appropriate for violent attempt on officer	Garreau: 25 years is grossly disproportionate to his crime	Not grossly disproportionate; sentence affirmed (threshold comparison ends review)
2. Inclusion of federal presentence report in state PSI — due process	State: sentencing courts may consider broad background information; rules of evidence do not constrain PSI materials	Garreau: federal PSI contained prejudicial, unrelated facts (pursuit/other conduct) that unfairly influenced sentencing	No due process violation; court may consider federal PSI to inform sentencing
3. Presence of counsel / self‑incrimination at court services interview	State: no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at non‑adversarial presentence interview; defendant was advised of Miranda rights and invoked silence on some topics	Garreau: Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights violated by questioning about drugs/guns without counsel and risk of other charges	No violation: defendant invoked silence when desired; no Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached for uncharged/irrelevant matters at PSI interview

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (discussing gross disproportionality standard for Eighth Amendment review)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (compare gravity of offense and harshness of penalty in proportionality analysis)
State v. Bonner, 577 N.W.2d 575 (S.D. 1998) (South Dakota application of proportionality standard)
State v. Buchhold, 727 N.W.2d 816 (statutory/sentencing review principles)
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (sentencing courts not bound by rules of evidence when considering background information)
State v. Grosh, 387 N.W.2d 503 (S.D. 1986) (sentencing judge’s broad access to defendant background)
State v. Kauk, 691 N.W.2d 606 (S.D. 2005) (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at presentence interview)
Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (Sixth Amendment counsel attaches to charged offenses, not uncharged crimes)
United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.) (presentence interview is non‑adversarial; counsel right not triggered)