State v. Holler, 944 N.W.2d 339

In Aug. 2017, shortly after his 18th birthday, Dylan Holler and two juveniles planned a "drug rip" to seize marijuana; Holler carried a stolen gun. During a struggle after attempting to pistol‑whip the seller, two shots were fired and R.S. (a passenger) was fatally shot. The seller escaped.
Holler was indicted for first‑degree murder, first‑degree robbery, and aggravated assault; he pleaded guilty to a negotiated charge of first‑degree manslaughter (Class C felony) and the indictment was dismissed.
Pre‑sentence materials and a psychiatric evaluation showed a history of childhood abuse, ADHD, substance use (including methamphetamine present at the offense), prior juvenile placements, and some demonstrated amenability to structured programs.
At sentencing the court imposed 80 years with 40 years suspended (credit 536 days) and ~ $44,000 in costs/restitution; Holler appealed the sentence.
Appellate issues: (1) Eighth Amendment gross disproportionality of the sentence; (2) whether the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to consider Holler’s individual characteristics at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Holler’s sentence is grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment	The State: sentence is within statutory limits, manslaughter is a serious, violent crime, and the sentence is not grossly disproportionate	Holler: sentence is excessive given lack of intent to kill, youth‑like characteristics, remorse, and mitigating background	Court: Affirmed — sentence not grossly disproportionate; threshold test not met
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to consider Holler’s individual characteristics at sentencing	The State: court considered PSI, psychiatric testimony, victim impact statements, and Holler’s history before imposing a permissible sentence	Holler: court failed to give sufficient weight to trauma, ADHD, rehabilitation prospects, and youth‑related mitigation	Court: No abuse of discretion; court adequately considered character, history, and rehabilitation prospects before imposing sentence

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (framework for gross‑disproportionality Eighth Amendment inquiry)
State v. Chipps, 874 N.W.2d 475 (2016) (South Dakota application of the Solem threshold and comparative analysis)
State v. Delehoy, 929 N.W.2d 103 (2019) (Eighth Amendment sentence review is de novo)
State v. Rice, 877 N.W.2d 75 (2016) (classification of first‑degree manslaughter gravity on criminality spectrum)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juvenile/adult distinction for Eighth Amendment analysis)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (limitations on mandatory life sentences for juveniles)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment bars life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) (age informs custody and related analyses)
State v. Bruce, 796 N.W.2d 397 (2011) (broad sentencing discretion; statutory maximum usually dispositive)
State v. Bonner, 577 N.W.2d 575 (1998) (sentences within statutory maximum generally upheld)
State v. Arabie, 663 N.W.2d 250 (2003) (materials and offender characteristics sentencing courts may consider)