Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Justin Dodge appealed a district court judgment and sentence imposing $14,438.44 in restitution following his guilty plea for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI). "The requirement of section 46-18-242, MCA, that a victim submit evidence specifically describing his or her pecuniary loss under oath in an affidavit or by testifying at sentencing is designed to ensure that restitution awards comply with basic principles of due process; that is, that an award is reliable." The Montana Supreme Court determined that the Department of Transportation’s failure to describe its loss under oath did not comply with the procedures and qualifications of 46-18-242, MCA, thus drawing into question the reliability of the award and Dodge’s substantial right to pay an accurate amount in restitution. The Court reversed the district court and remanded this case for resentencing for the limited purpose of reconsidering the restitution order. View "Montana v. Dodge" on Justia Law

Murry Kim Reynolds was convicted of felony Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, fourth or subsequent offense (DUI), and two misdemeanors: Failure To Have Liability Insurance In Effect and Failure To Drive On The Right Side Of The Roadway. He did not challenge his convictions on appeal; however, he appealed a June 2016 Judgment in which the District Court imposed fines, surcharges, prosecution costs, public defender costs, and court technology fees. The Montana Supreme Court found only that the misdemeanor surcharges totaling $30 and the court technology fee for the misdemeanors totaling $20 were incorrectly imposed in the written judgment and therefore had to be stricken from Reynolds’s criminal sentence. The Court found no abuse of the district court's discretion and otherwise affirmed. View "Montana v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

At issue was whether the Supreme Court should exercise plain error review to reverse Defendant’s conviction for assault because the jury was not instructed on the burden of proof for justifiable use of force.The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court that denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, affirmed the justice court’s judgment, and remanded the case to the justice court to enforce its judgment. The court exercised plain error review to reverse Defendant’s conviction, holding that the justice court’s failure to instruct the jury that the State bore the burden of proving Defendant’s actions were not justified beyond a reasonable doubt denied Defendant a fair trial. View "State v. Akers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to forty years’ incarceration, with ten years suspended, and requiring him to pay approximately $3.5 million in restitution.Defendant was found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault. After Defendant was sentenced he appealed, arguing (1) the district court improperly admitted testimony that Child Protective Services removed children from Defendant’s care, and (2) the district court erred by ordering him to pay restitution for the victim’s future psychiatric treatment, counseling, family and marriage counseling, group home care, and case management expenses because the award was speculative. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court admitted irrelevant testimony that the children were removed from Defendant’s care, but the error was harmless; and (2) the restitution award was adequate because the costs were derived using reasonable methods and the best evidence available under the circumstances. View "State v. Santillan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court wherein Defendant pled guilty to felony driving under the influence of alcohol, fourth or subsequent offense, and three misdemeanors. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court violated his right to due process during sentencing and erred in sentencing him, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for entry of an amended judgment, holding (1) the district court did not deprive Defendant of his right to due process during sentencing; (2) the district court did not err in imposing a condition on Defendant’s suspended sentence; (3) Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel during sentencing; and (4) the sentencing conditions in the written judgment should be amended to conform to oral pronouncement of the conditions. View "State v. Lafield" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner’s sentence of 110 years’ imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, for deliberate homicide with the use of a weapon did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights even where Petitioner committed the offense when he was seventeen years old. At issue was whether Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __ (2016), apply to Montana’s discretionary sentencing scheme and whether Petitioner’s sentence qualifies as a de facto life sentence to which Miller and Montgomery apply. The Supreme Court held (1) Miller and Montgomery apply to discretionary sentences in Montana; and (2) Petitioner’s sentence, when viewed in light of Petitioner’s eligibility for day-for-day good time credit and the concurrent sentence he was serving in Washington, did not qualify as a de facto life sentence to which Miller’s substantive rule applied. View "Steilman v. Michael" on Justia Law

The State filed an amended information charging Defendant of thirteen counts. Thereafter, federal prosecutors obtained an indictment against Defendant for four federal charges. The State then filed a second amended in information to remove from the first amended information transactions that were the subject of the federal indictment. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court denied. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of aggravated kidnapping and sexual intercourse without consent. Defendant then pled guilty to federal count two and the other federal charges were dismissed. Upon Defendant’s second trial on the remaining State charges, the jury found Defendant guilty of all counts except for burglary and an alternative theft charge. Defendant moved to dismiss the state felony charges on statutory multiple prosecution grounds. The district court denied the motion. Before Defendant was sentenced on the state charges, he filed this appeal. The Supreme Court held (1) a defendant can appeal the denial of a motion for dismissal under Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-504(1) prior to the entry of a final judgment; and; (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion under section 46-11-504(1) to dismiss the charges of deceptive practices, burglary, and felony theft, given his federal conviction for possession of stolen firearms. View "State v. Burton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to one count of felony sexual assault.After entering his guilty plea, Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea and rescind the plea agreement. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Defendant had established good cause to withdraw his plea. The court based its decision primarily on its conclusion that defense counsel had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and on the threatening atmosphere surrounding the proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State was authorized to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and (2) the district court did not err by determining that good cause existed to permit Defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. View "State v. Terronez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court rejecting a reoffered plea agreement between the State and Appellant and leaving Appellant’s conviction undisturbed, despite a federal district court’s direction that the State reoffer Appellant an originally un-communicated and favorable plea proposal.Appellant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and other crimes. Appellant later applied for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) because his counsel failed to communicate a plea offer to him. The federal district court granted Appellant’s petition relating to his IAC claim and remanded the case. In accordance with the court’s directions, the State reoffered Appellant an equivalent plea. The district court rejected the reoffered plea agreement because Appellant was unwilling to accept responsibility for his actions at the time the plea offer was made. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the reoffered plea agreement; and (2) did not err by not allowing Appellant to withdraw his guilty plea after it rejected the reoffered plea agreement. View "State v. Rose" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to felony criminal endangerment under Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-207. The district court imposed a ten-year sentence to the Department of Corrections, with five years suspended. Defendant appealed, asserting claims of judicial bias and ineffective assistance of counsel. At no time during the proceedings did Defendant state a claim of judicial bias against the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this court declines to undertake consideration of the merits of Defendant’s bias allegation pursuant to the plain error doctrine; and (2) Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not reviewable on direct appeal. View "State v. Howard" on Justia Law