]" Thus, Garreau's "statements were not made in the absence of knowledge about his right to remain silent[.]" State v. Kauk, 2005 S.D. 1, ¶ 18, 691 N.W.2d 606, 610 (per curiam). Furthermore, Garreau acknowledges that, at least as of the date of filing his brief, he was not facing additional charges based on his statements regarding drug use and gun possession.

Whitepipe's Fifth (and related Miranda) and Sixth Amendment contentions are, in any event, plainly without merit. State v. Kauk, 2005 SD 1, ¶¶ 8-19, 691 N.W.2d 606, 608-11 (citing numerous federal cases);see also United States v. Archambault, 344 F.3d 732, 736 n. 4 (8th Cir. 2003) (the Sixth Amendment does not apply to routine presentence interviews); United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003) (relying on the non-adversarial nature of presentence interview). Likewise, his Eighth Amendment contention has no factual or legal basis and must fall by the wayside as well. Because Whitepipe has failed to establish a specific federal constitutional violation or undue prejudice, and because the contentions he now makes are procedurally barred or have no merit, his objections must be overruled.

does not act on behalf of the prosecution ... a presentence interview in a non-capital case is not a critical stage ...." [internal quotation marks omitted] ); United States v. Hicks , 948 F.2d 877, 885–86 (4th Cir. 1991) (sentencing judges exercise independent discretion in determining defendant's sentence and denial of counsel in this context is constitutionally insignificant); United States v. Cortes , 922 F.2d 123, 128 (2d Cir. 1990) (even assuming sixth amendment extends to presentence interview, sixth amendment not violated where defendant did not claim counsel was excluded from interview or that defendant was forced to proceed without counsel); State v. Kauk , 691 N.W.2d 606, 608–10 (S.D. 2005) (defendant's right to counsel not violated where counsel was absent from presentence interview); People v. Cortijo , 291 App. Div. 2d 352, 352, 739 N.Y.S. 2d 19 (presentence interview does not constitute stage of proceedings at which right to counsel attaches), leave to appeal denied, 98 N.Y.2d 674, 774 N.E.2d 228, 746 N.Y.S.2d 463 (2002). The cases that recognize that the sixth amendment does not apply to presentence interviews place an emphasis on the voluntary nature of such interviews, the sentencing judge's independent discretion in sentencing, and the probation officer's role in sentence determination.