Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1988, Appellant was convicted of misdemeanor assault and felony sexual intercourse without consent and was also designated a persistent felony offender (PFO). In 2013, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he was wrongly sentenced for both the underlying felony and his PFO status. The Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded for correction of the illegal sentence. On remand, the district court resentenced Appellant during a status conference docketed under a newly-created civil cause number when neither Defendant nor his attorney were present. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant was sentenced with a complete lack of statutory or constitutional process. Remanded for a sentencing hearing.View "State v. McEvoy" on Justia Law

Defendant was accused of multiple instances of sexual activity with C.M., a fourteen-year-old student at Billings Senior High School, where Defendant was employed as a teacher. C.M. subsequently took her own life. The State eventually charged Defendant with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent. Defendant pled guilty to one count of the charged offense, and the State recommended a prison sentence of twenty years with ten suspended. The district court, however, sentenced Defendant to fifteen years’ incarceration with all but thirty-one days suspended, indicating that C.M. had “control” of the situation with Defendant and that she was mature beyond her years. After significant public outcry, the district court apologized and published an order acknowledging the illegality of Defendant’s sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment, holding (1) the sentence in this case was imposed under an inapplicable statute, and the illegality of the sentence could not be corrected by striking some portion of the offending language; and (2) reassignment to a new judge was necessary to preserve the appearance of fairness and justice in this matter. Remanded for resentencing.View "State v. Rambold" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs. The State subsequently filed a petition to revoke Defendant’s deferred sentence based on her possession of oxycodone in violation of the conditions of her probation. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized by her probation officer after a search of Defendant’s purse. The district court denied the motion and later revoked Defendant’s deferred sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly concluded that the probation officer conducted a legitimate probation search based on reasonable suspicion and in thereby denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.View "State v. Fischer" on Justia Law

In 2009, Kristine Davenport sought to disqualify Justice of the Peace John Odlin for cause from presiding in two misdemeanor cases against Davenport. The district court denied Davenport’s motion to disqualify Odlin. Davenport subsequently filed a flurry of motions, briefs, and requests, which the district court denied. On August 23, 2011, the district court entered an amended order imposing Mont. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions and ordered Davenport to pay $2,500 within thirty days. Davenport appealed the district court’s refusal to disqualify Odlin pursuant to her affidavits of disqualification. The Supreme Court held that Davenport’s affidavits did not comply with the good faith requirement in Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-805(1)(b) and that her arguments failed. Subsequently, on April 1, 2013, the district court again amended its order to impose jail time on Davenport should she fail to pay the $2,500 Rule 11 sanctions within thirty days. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court’s April 1, 2013 order must be set aside and its August 23, 2011 amended order reinstated because the district court incorrectly amended its order a year and a half after the matter should have terminated. View "Davenport v. Odlin" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony aggravated assault related to injuries incurred by his five-month-old son. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it concluded that Defendant had waived his right to a jury trial; (2) Defendant failed to convince the Court that plain error review was warranted as to Defendant’s claim that his absence from the deposition of a State witness violated his right to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings; and (3) the district court did not commit reversible error in rendering its verdict that Defendant was guilty of aggravated assault.View "State v. Reim" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The district court sentenced Petitioner to thirty years imprisonment, with twenty years suspended. Petitioner subsequently submitted an application to the Sentence Review Division for sentence review. During a hearing, Petitioner’s counsel advocated for a more onerous sentence than the district court had originally imposed. After the hearing had concluded, Petitioner’s counsel asked that Petitioner be permitted to withdraw his application, leaving his original sentence intact. The Division declined Petitioner’s request to withdraw his application and ultimately entered an order increasing Petitioner’s sentence to thirty years imprisonment, with ten years suspended. The district court amended the previous judgment and resentenced Petitioner in accordance with the Division’s decision. Petitioner sought relief from the Division’s decision. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Division and the amended judgment of the district court and remanded with directions to reinstate the sentence as originally imposed, holding that counsel’s deficient performance rendered the proceeding before the Division fundamentally unfair. View "Avery v. Batista" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of felony sexual intercourse without consent and felony sexual assault. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution to compensate the victims for fifty-two hours of counseling. Appellant later filed a petition for remission of restitution. The district court denied Appellant’s order after a hearing at which the victims testified. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court was well within the bounds of reason in determining that Appellant should not be released from his restitution obligation. View "State v. Passmore" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to failure to register as a sexual or violent offender. The district court sentenced Defendant to Montana State Prison, not to the Department of Corrections as agreed - for three years, all suspended, and imposed eight probation conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the district court erred by rejecting the plea agreement without allowing Defendant the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea; (2) the district did not err by imposing seven of the conditions on Defendant’s sentence; and (3) Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the use of the term “pornography” rendered the remaining condition unconstitutionally vague. View "State v. Nauman" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to felony criminal endangerment and misdemeanor aggravated driving under the influence. At a sentencing hearing, the State, as agreed, recommended a six-year commitment to the Department of Corrections, with three years suspended. The district court declining to adopt the sentence recommendation and sentenced Defendant to ten years suspended. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that the district court failed to comply with Mont. Code Ann. 46-12-211(4) because the court had not informed him that it was rejecting the agreement and had not offered him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence and reversed and remanded for another sentencing hearing, holding that the district court failed to comply with section 46-12-211(4) when it departed from the plea agreement without providing Defendant with the full advisory required by the statute. View "State v. Zunick" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court remanded the case to correct illegal portions of the sentence. On remand, the district court filed a first amended judgment and sentence sentencing Defendant to a term of commitment and recommending conditions of parole and ordering conditions of probation, one of which was payment of restitution. Because the district court never specified the amount of restitution to be paid, the State filed a motion for a ruling on restitution. The district court then entered a second amended judgment and sentence ordering Defendant to pay $16,361 in restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) had the authority to specify in its second amended judgment and sentence the total amount of restitution; (2) did not err by recommending parole restrictions; and (3) did not improperly base the length of Defendant’s sentence on the amount of time it would take her to pay restitution. View "State v. Winter" on Justia Law