Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a sexual offender, was charged with failing to provide notice of his change of residence. Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court imposed a four-year sentence and imposed several probation conditions recommended in Defendant's presentence investigation report. The district court also required Defendant to pay the costs of his court-ordered evaluations and treatment. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding (1) Defendant's failure to object to the district court's requirement that he pay the costs of his court-ordered evaluations and treatment in the district court precluded Defendant from raising the issue on appeal; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing certain conditions, which relate specifically to sexual offenders, as part of Defendant's probation. View "State v. Bullplume" on Justia Law

After the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) was granted temporary legal custody of Child, DPHHS petitioned for termination of Mother and Father's parental rights. After a hearing, the district court terminated both Mother's and Father's parental rights to Child. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination order, holding (1) DPHHS made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother with Child; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that Mother's drug addiction rendered her unfit to parent Child and that her condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; (3) the district court had jurisdiction to terminate Father's parental rights; (4) Father's attorney rendered effective assistance; (5) the district court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights based upon his incarceration for mitigated deliberate homicide; and (6) the district court correctly concluded that termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights was in Child's best interest. View "In re A.D.B." on Justia Law

Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. Defendant was informed that his failure to appear at the final pre-trial hearing would constitute a waiver of his right to a jury trial. Defendant failed to appear at the final hearing, although his counsel made an appearance. The court set a date for a bench trial. Defendant filed a motion to vacate the bench trial and reset the matter for a jury trial, arguing that his absence was due to his development disabilities and medical conditions, which affected his memory. The municipal court summarily denied Defendant's motion and proceeded to a nonjury trial, after which the court found Defendant guilty of disorderly conduct. The district court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in light of certain affidavits and Defendant's medical records, combined with defense counsel's appearance and affirmative representation at the final pre-trial hearing that Defendant was not waiving his right of trial by jury, the municipal court abused its discretion in deeming Defendant's failure to appear at the final pre-trial hearing as a waiver of Defendant's right to a jury trial. View "City of Missoula v. Girard" on Justia Law

Bruce Nelson subdivided property in the 1970s. Appellant claimed he purchased tract eighteen from Nelson ten days after Nelson filed the plat. Appellant claimed that at the time of the conveyance, Nelson guaranteed that it would not sell adjoining tracts sixteen and seventeen. Appellee filed a notarized declaration four years later. In 2005, however, Nelson sold tracts sixteen and seventeen. Appellee purchased tracts sixteen and seventeen in 2008. Appellee filed a quiet title action to clear her title of any cloud that may have arisen as a result of Appellant's declaration. The district court granted summary judgment for Appellee, concluding that Appellant's declaration did not create a restriction on development and that there was no restriction on the property prohibiting the sale of the disputed tracts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Appellee. View "Pennington v. Flaherty" on Justia Law

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commissions (collectively referred to as DFWP) decided to transfer a group of bison to two reservations as part of a quarantine program. Plaintiffs, collectively referred to here as the Citizens for Balanced Use, filed this lawsuit challenging the DFWP action and seeking to enjoin the bison transport. While the bison transport was still in process, the district court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining certain bison movement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court relied upon erroneous grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction under Mont. Code Ann. 27-19-201(3). View "Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop of his vehicle, arguing that the officer lacked particularized suspicion for the stop. The justice court denied Defendant's motion. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the court's suppression ruling. On appeal, the district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, finding that the officer had particularized suspicion to justify an investigative stop. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress, as there were sufficient facts for the officer to form a particularized suspicion that Defendant was committing an offense and, thus, to initiate an investigative stop. View "State v. Wagner" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, assault with a weapon, and assault on a peace officer. The Supreme Court upheld Defendant's convictions. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court dismissed Defendant's petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's postconviction relief claim alleging that (1) Defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective representation during plea negotiations, as Defendant could not show prejudice by asserting an incorrect or overruled legal principle as the basis for his claim of ineffective assistance; (2) Defendant was denied access to counsel during an overnight recess; and (3) Defendant's appellate counsel provided ineffective representation by failing to raise certain issues on appeal. View "Rose v. State" on Justia Law

When Father and Mother divorced, the district court ordered Father to pay child support. After Father failed to make child support payments, the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) of the Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department) placed a support lien on all of his property. After Father and Mother's divorce, Mother married Plaintiff. Plaintiff and Mother subsequently divorced pursuant to a final decree of dissolution in which Mother assigned to Plaintiff her interest in the child support lien. Thereafter, Plaintiff commenced a proceeding against Father seeking to foreclose on the CSED support lien. The district court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ordering that Plaintiff could foreclose on the child support lien. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff was precluded from obtaining an enforceable interest in the support lien, as, under Montana law, the Department alone held the rights to and was authorized to foreclose on the child support lien. Remanded. View "LeCount v. Davis" on Justia Law

Employee was fired by employer after allegations that Employee had a sexual relationship with a co-worker. Employee was found eligible to receive unemployment benefits. The Board of Labor Appeals affirmed. Employee subsequently filed this suit, alleging that Employer discharged him in violation of the Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act. After a trial, the jury found Employer did not wrongfully terminate Employee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) failing to grant summary judgment to Employee on liability and allowing Employer to proceed to trial on the question of whether it had good cause to discharge Employee; (2) failing to sanction Employer for discovery abuse and destruction of evidence; (3) denying Employee's motion to amend the pleadings to add a claim for punitive damages; (4) allowing Employer's expert witness to testify, as she did not testify as to ultimate issues of fact and law; and (5) allowing witnesses to testify to rumors heard at the workplace about Employee. View "Cartwright v. Scheels All Sports, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony DUI and two misdemeanors. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges on speedy trial grounds. The district court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to DUI pursuant to a plea agreement with the State in which the State agreed to drop the misdemeanor charges. Thereafter, Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found the State did not violate Defendant's right to a speedy trial where (1) Defendant's delay exceeded the 200-day trigger for a speedy trial analysis; but (2) the State's institutional delay did not prejudice Defendant. View "State v. Steigelman" on Justia Law