Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant entered a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to two counts of felony theft and to pay restitution for the loss incurred as a result of his fraudulent acts. At issue was whether the district court erred in issuing a restitution order where the State failed to submit sworn victim affidavits as required by 46-18-242(1)(b), MCA. The court held that defendant failed to preserve his objection to the pre-sentencing investigation report's omission of victim affidavits where, except for his lone objection on the date of sentencing, defendant did not alert the trial court of any claim that victim affidavits were required for an order of restitution in his case; where defendant's plea agreement expressly consented to the court's determination of restitution upon hearing; where his own filings acknowledged the accuracy of the surrender penalty figures; and where his pre-sentencing briefs stated the dispute in terms of legal argument regarding the measure of loss, which the parties had agreed to submit to the court for resolution, a ruling he did not challenge on appeal.

Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of similarly situated plaintiffs who received Medicaid assistance and were subject to a Medicaid lien pursuant to 53-2-612, MCA, sued defendant alleging that defendant had collected a greater amount than it was entitled from plaintiffs' recoveries from other sources. The parties raised several issues on appeal. The court held that Ark. Dept. of Health & Human Servs. v. Ahlborn applied retroactively to all class members' claims and that defendant must raise affirmative defenses with respect to individual class members to avoid Ahlborn's effect. The court held that the applicable statute of limitations to be 27-2-231, MCA, which provided for a five-year limitations period. The court declined to disturb the district court's order requiring defendant to compile data on individual class members' claims. The court reversed the district court's determination as to interest assessed against defendant, and concluded that no interest could be assessed until two years after any judgment had been entered, under 2-9-317, MCA. The court concluded that the term "third party" in the Medicaid reimbursement statutes included all other sources of medical assistance available to Medicaid recipients, including private health or automobile insurance obtained by the Medicaid recipient. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the class on its proffered distinction between "first party" and "third party" sources. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs' "made whole" claim was immaterial in light of Ahlborn.

Defendant was found guilty of deliberate homicide, DUI, violation of an order of protection, criminal endangerment, driving while the privilege to do so was suspended or revoked, and tampering with physical evidence. At issue was whether defendant's right to be present at all critical stages of his criminal proceeding was violated and whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error when defendant was not allowed to be present at his omnibus hearing where, based on the facts, the court found that defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of his absence from the hearing. The court also held that the record did not demonstrate the reasoning behind any of the alleged errors committed by defendant's counsel and therefore, a postconviction proceeding would better address defendant's claims where the record could be fully developed.

Respondent entered a true plea and was adjudged delinquent in the district court in 2005 for knowingly engaging in sexual acts with a person under 12 years of age, which would have been a crime under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) and 1153(a) if committed by an adult. At issue, in a certified question, was whether respondent's duty to remain registered as a sex offender under Montana law was contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his now-expired federal juvenile-supervision order that required him to register as a sex offender or was the duty an independent requirement of Montana law that was unaffected by the validity or invalidity of the federal juvenile-supervision conditions. The court held that respondent's state law duty to remain registered as a sex offender was not contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his federal supervision order, but was an independent requirement of Montana law. Therefore, the Montana Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act ("SVORA"), 46-23-501 through 502, directly applied to respondent and he had a continuing duty to register under SVORA, which was entirely independent from the registration conditions imposed by his federal supervision order.

Petitioner appealed from an order of the district court denying his petition for post-conviction relief after he was convicted with two counts of sexual assault for touching the vaginal areas of his co-worker's two stepdaughters. At issue was whether petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel during trial and on direct appeal, and whether prosecutorial misconduct violated petitioner's due process rights. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying petitioner post conviction relief and held that petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel relating to counsel's pretrial investigation, use of expert testimony, decisions regarding objections to vouching and prosecutorial misconduct, admissibility of evidence, and other objections to trial irregularities, as well as on appeal, where petitioner failed to demonstrate the two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington. The court also held that petitioner failed to raise claims of prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal and could not raise them in post-conviction relief.

Defendant appealed her misdemeanor convictions of driving while the privilege to do so was suspended, failing to carry proof of insurance, and driving under the influence. At issue was whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when her counsel failed to file a motion to dismiss on grounds that she did not receive a speedy trial. The court held that defendant's attorney provided ineffective assistance where the attorney's failure to move for dismissal after six months following mistrial was deficient performance and did not meet the objective standard of reasonableness. The court also held that defendant suffered extreme prejudice as a consequence of her attorney's ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, the court remanded with instructions for the district court to dismiss and vacate defendant's charges.

The Missoula City Counsel, the City of Missoula, and the Mayor, (collectively "City") and Muth-Hilberry, LLC ("developer") appealed a district court determination that found that the City was arbitrary and capricious in approving a zoning and preliminary plat for a subdivision known as Sonata Park located in Rattlesnake Valley, Montana. At issue was whether neighbors, several parties opposed to the subdivision, and the North Duncan Drive Neighborhood Association, Inc. ("Association") had standing. Also at issue was whether the district court erred in striking affidavits filed by the developer and the City in connection with their motions for summary judgment. Further at issue was whether the 1989 Sunshine Agreement between the City and the developer's predecessor in interest superseded the City's growth policy. Finally at issue was whether the City's decision in Sonata Park was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. The court held that the neighbors had standing to sue in their own right and that the Association had associational standing to proceed on behalf of its members. The court also held that any error made by the district court in granting the neighbor's motion to strike the developer's affidavit was harmless. The court further held that the Sunlight Agreement did not supersede the City's growth policy where the Sunlight Agreement could be void ab initio and did not appear to guarantee certain density. The court finally held that substantial compliance was still valid and that a government body must substantially comply with its growth policy in making zoning decisions and that the City's decision to approve Sonata Park was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Defendant appealed a conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI") where the DUI was charged as a felony because he had three prior DUI convictions. At issue was whether the district court erred in denying defendant's motion to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor where he claimed that his 1997 conviction was constitutionally infirm because he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed and held that defendant had not met his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his 1997 conviction was constitutionally infirm due to his ineffective assistance of trial counsel where defendant failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable care and where, even assuming that it did, defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different.

Defendant appealed a conviction of sexual intercourse without consent. At issue was whether defendant's due process rights were violated by false and misleading DNA evidence. Also at issue was whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed and held that defendant failed to demonstrate that his right to due process was violated where defendant failed to demonstrate that the DNA evidence was actually false, that there was no evidence that the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony, and that that the false testimony was material and where there was no reasonable likelihood that the allegedly false testimony could have affected the jury's judgment where the prosecutor relied on DNA and non-DNA evidence. The court also held that defendant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel where the record did not reveal why trial counsel failed to undertake actions that he alleged she should have taken.

The State of Montana appealed an order of the district court reversing defendant's conviction for partner or family member assault where his wife called 911 while fleeing from the family home afraid that he would harm her. At issue was whether the evidence presented to establish reasonable apprehension of bodily injury was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where his wife testified at trial that many of her statements provided to the police were lies. Also at issue was whether the state's appeal was precluded by law because it sought to reinstate defendant's guilty verdict. The court first held that the state's appeal was not precluded by law where defendant was not subjected to impermissible retrial, further prosecution, or double punishment for the same offense. The court also held that the evidence presented by the prosecution could have allowed a rational trier of fact to conclude that the "reasonable apprehension of bodily injury" element was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt where the 911 recording clearly demonstrated the wife's outright fear, she was scared enough to flee her home into a cold, snowy night wearing only pajamas and socks, her fear was so great that the dispatcher had to coax her out of hiding, and three officers testified to her distraught appearance.