State v. Moran, 2015 SD 14

On Jan. 17, 2014, Officer Biehl stopped a speeding vehicle after a multi-mile pursuit; Moran was a passenger, Menard the driver, Stoneman rear seat.
Search revealed in the vehicle: a digital scale, ~1/8 ounce of meth, two firearms; Stoneman had numerous empty jeweler baggies and a 9mm bullet; a small jeweler baggie with white powder residue was found in Moran’s coat (not tested).
After additional officers arrived and the occupants were asked to stand, a glass pipe fell from Moran; residue on the pipe field-tested positive for meth. Moran was arrested.
Moran was charged with possession of meth, possession with intent to distribute, and being a felon in possession of a firearm; State filed a part II information based on two prior felonies.
Moran pleaded guilty to possession of meth pursuant to a plea agreement dismissing other charges; at arraignment the State warned it would argue against presumptive probation under SDCL 22-6-11.
At sentencing the court found multiple aggravating circumstances (prior felonies, probation violations, treatment failures, firearms/drugs in vehicle, crime committed while on probation) and imposed the statutory maximum five-year prison term; Moran appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moran’s guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent	The State contended plea was valid because court advised Moran of rights, penalties, and State’s intent to argue against presumptive probation	Moran argued he pleaded under mistaken belief he would receive presumptive probation and that court must give pre-sentencing notice if it will depart from SDCL 22-6-11 so defense can prepare mitigation	Court held plea was knowing and voluntary: record shows advisements, plea agreement understanding, and court complied with SDCL 22-6-11 by stating aggravating circumstances on the record at sentencing
Whether five-year sentence was grossly disproportionate (Eighth Amendment)	State argued sentence within statutory maximum and supported by multiple aggravating factors and defendant’s criminal history; thus not grossly disproportionate	Moran argued the maximum sentence was excessive and violated the Eighth Amendment	Court held no gross disproportionality: sentence within statutory limits and aggravating facts made prison term reasonable; review ends

State v. Hernandez, 845 N.W.2d 21 (S.D. 2014) (court satisfied SDCL 22-6-11 by stating aggravating circumstances on record at sentencing)
LeGrand v. Weber, 855 N.W.2d 121 (S.D. 2014) (constitutional and procedural requirements for guilty pleas)
State v. Outka, 844 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 2014) (totality-of-circumstances test for plea voluntariness)
State v. Apple, 759 N.W.2d 283 (S.D. 2008) (criminal procedural rules safeguard voluntary pleas)
State v. Bonner, 577 N.W.2d 575 (S.D. 1998) (gross disproportionality review for Eighth Amendment challenges)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (framework for proportionality review)