Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his convictions for obstructing a peace officer, partner or family member assault and three counts of criminal endangerment, among other offenses, rendered after the district court rejected a plea agreement entered into between Defendant and the State and the case proceeded to trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not reviewable on direct appeal because it is not apparent based on the record; and (2) assuming, for the sake of argument, that the State breached the plea agreement, Defendant elected the remedy of withdrawing his plea in response to the alleged breach and could not now obtain the alternative remedy of specific performance. View "State v. Stratton" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of sexual assault against R.W., the eight-year-old daughter of Defendant’s former girlfriend, and acquitted him of a separate charge against K.W., R.W.’s twin sister. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) even if a certain remark made by the prosecutor during closing argument was improper, the statement was not prejudicial; (2) the district court did not commit plain error when it failed to give a specific unanimity instruction to the jury in light of the parties’ presentation of the case; and (3) the district court’s failure to disclose to the defense information from the medical and counseling records that it reviewed in camera did not warrant a new trial. View "State v. Stutzman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed its plain meaning construction of Mont. Code Ann. 46-13-401(2) and clarified the correct shorthand calculation method for measuring the six-month speedy trial deadline, as manifest in State v. Ronningen and State v. Belgarde. The Court held that the municipal court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss due to lack of a speedy trial because Defendant’s trial was untimely under the plain meaning of Mont. Code Ann. 46-13-401(2). Thus, the Court reversed Defendant’s conviction for misdemeanor driving under the influence, third offense, and a related traffic offense, holding that the trial court failed to correctly measure the six-month speedy trial deadline under section 46-13-401(2). View "City of Helena v. Grove" on Justia Law

Lance Christopher Pavlik was convicted for criminal offenses and sentenced to a Department of Corrections (DOC) commitment. Sandy VanSkyock, a DOC probation officer, requested that DOC override its usual preliminary screening process and, instead, place Pavlik directly at the Montana State Prison. The override request was approved. Pavlik later moved the district court to hold VanSkyock in contempt and sanction her in her individual capacity on the ground that she requested the DOC preliminary placement screening override based on falsified information. VanSkyock moved to dismiss the proceedings based on lack of jurisdiction, the statute of limitations, and because she cannot be held in contempt for DOC’s valid placement decision. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. Upon VanSkyock’s request that the Supreme Court intervene via supervisory control the Supreme Court reversed, holding that Pavlik’s motion failed to state a cognizable claim for criminal contempt as a matter of law. Remanded for denial of Pavlik’s contempt motion. View "Vanskyock v. Twentieth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the district court did not err by determining that Appellant’s Texas convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) constituted prior convictions for purposes of sentencing on his current Montana DUI conviction. Appellant pled guilty to the DUI but challenged the use of his prior DUI convictions, concluding that he was convicted in Texas under a lower standard than Montana law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Texas DUI statutes were similar to Montana’s laws in effect at that time, rendering Appellant’s Texas convictions as prior convictions for purposes of Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-734(1)(a). View "State v. Olson" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to the possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court made sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress to allow informed appellate review; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the police did not need to obtain Defendant’s consent to search the vehicle and its internal compartments. View "State v. Baty" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal endangerment, DUI, failure to carry proof of insurance, and driving without a valid driver’s license. Instead of a three-year deferred sentence recommended in the plea agreement, the district court sentenced Defendant on her criminal endangerment charge to five years with the Department of Corrections with three years suspended. The district court also imposed four court information technology surcharges for each count totaling $40. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the State did not breach the term of the plea agreement that it recommend a deferred sentence on the criminal endangerment charge; and (2) the district court erred in imposing the court information technology user surcharge per count and not per user. Remanded to modify the imposition of the surcharge to a per user basis for a total of one $10 surcharge. View "State v. Ellison" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal mischief, a felony, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled nolo contendere to the offenses charged in the information. The district court imposed a six-year sentence on the criminal mischief conviction and a concurrent six-month sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The court suspended both sentences. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon denial of a speedy trial. View "State v. Brekke" on Justia Law

Seventeen-year-old Defendant was charged with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. Defendant filed two motions to transfer each charge to Youth Court. The district court denied both transfer motions. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent. Defendant was sentenced to fifty years in prison, with ten years suspended. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s refusal to transfer the charges to Youth Court, holding that the district court did not err in denying the transfer motions; and (2) remanded for entry of an amended judgment and review of the sentence as provided by law, holding that the district court erred by not including the requirements found in Mont. Code Ann. 41-5-2503(1) in Defendant’s sentence. View "State v. Talksabout" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute. After a sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a six-year deferred sentence, with a $1,500 fine to be paid to the Eastern Montana Drug Task Force, and a $15,000 fine pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-130. Defendant appealed, challenging the imposition of the $15,000 fine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the $15,000 fine was not a sentence enhancement that violated the requirements of Apprendi v. New Jersey and Mont. Code Ann. 46-1-401; (2) the $15,000 fine did not violate Montana’s constitutional prohibition of “excessive fines”; and (3) Defendant’s double jeopardy argument, which he did not raise below, did not warrant plain error review, and Defendant was not entitled to relief pursuant to the Lenihan Rule. View "State v. Le" on Justia Law