Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of two misdemeanor sexual assaults following pleas of guilty to both offenses. In sentencing Defendant, the municipal court imposed a condition of probation that required Defendant to obtain a psychosexual evaluation and to follow through with a minimum of six months of therapy unless sooner released by a counselor or therapist. The district court upheld the requirement that Defendant undergo a psychosexual evaluation and receive counseling. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the municipal court (1) acted within its authority by requiring Defendant to obtain a psychosexual evaluation as a condition of probation; and (2) imposed a releasable condition of probation by requiring Defendant to obtain a psychosexual evaluation following his conviction. View "City v. Cantu" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court affirmed the municipal court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress that had challenged the particularized suspicion to stop Defendant based on the obstruction of a license plate. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction but vacated his sentence, holding (1) the municipal court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress, as Defendant's right to be free from unreasonable searches was not violated; (2) counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to elicit certain testimony from the arresting officers at trial and not renewing the motion to suppress once those facts were elicited; but (3) Defendant's sentence violated his due process rights because it was based on his indigency. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Haldane" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of felony negligent vehicular assault and one count of felony criminal endangerment. The district court sentenced Defendant to the Department of Corrections for six years with eighteen months suspended on each count, to run concurrently, ordered Defendant to complete 100 hours of community service, and imposed twenty-nine enumerated conditions of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court imposed a legal sentence on Defendant; (2) the district court did not impose unreasonable and unconstitutional probation conditions on Defendant; and (3) Defendant's argument that the sentence review division process was unconstitutional was not ripe for judicial determination. View "State v. Whalen" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with felony driving under the influence of alcohol and careless driving. The State filed notice that it intended to seek persistent felony offender status for Defendant due to Defendant's previous conviction for felony DUI. Defendant's attorney objected to the proposed designation, and the district court denied the objection. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to the felony DUI charge. After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted on the careless driving charge. The district court sentenced Defendant to ten years in prison as a persistent felony offender based on the felony DUI and to thirty days in jail on the careless driving conviction. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the sentence for felony DUI as a persistent felony offender, holding that the sentence was lawful; but (2) reversed the jail time sentence for the careless driving conviction and remanded with instructions to strike the jail time because the district court exceeded its authority when it imposed the sentence. View "State v. Kime" on Justia Law

Tamara Lucas and her husband James brought a legal malpractice claim against attorney Mat Stevenson after they hired Stevenson to defend James against criminal charges and to represent them in a civil suit against the city police department, the city, and individual police officers that arrested James for disturbing the peace and felony assault on a peace officer. However, Stevenson later learned that the Lucases had previously filed for bankruptcy. The civil suit was determined to an asset of the bankruptcy estate, and Stevenson was reassigned to pursue the case on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. After a settlement agreement was reached, the Lucases brought this action against Stevenson. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Stevenson. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined (1) the Lucases' civil claims were properly determined to be an asset of the bankruptcy estate; and (2) Stevenson did not represent the Lucases at the time the claims were settled, and therefore, the Lucases had no standing to bring a legal malpractice claim against him. View "Lucas v. Stevenson" on Justia Law

Without entering a plea bargain agreement with the State, Defendant pled guilty to a felony DUI charge and admitted he violated the terms of the suspended sentence he was serving for a previous DUI conviction. The district court accepted Defendant's guilty plea and revoked Defendant's sentence. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the proceedings because his court-appointed attorney allegedly told him "just prior to sentencing" that the State had made a more favorable plea offer before he changed his plea to guilty that would have resulted in a shorter sentence. The district court dismissed Defendant's petition for failing to provide factual support for his claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by dismissing Defendant's postconviction relief petition as insufficiently pled, as there was no record evidence of a formal plea offer or of Defendant's lawyer's failure to inform him of a plea offer, other than an insufficient affidavit submitted by Defendant. View "Kelly v. State" on Justia Law

After a justice court bench trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced for partner or family member assault. The district court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the justice court jury was properly called pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 3-15-313; (2) the court's determination that the charging documents in this case were sufficient under the law was not an abuse of discretion; and (3) the district court correctly affirmed the decision of the justice court to reject Defendant's proposed jury instructions on disorderly conduct as a lesser-included offense, which would have allowed the jury to convict Defendant of disturbing the peace instead of partner or family member assault. View "State v. Fehringer" on Justia Law

Brandon Davis was killed when the vehicle that he was driving collided with a small bus, owned by Defendant, that was parked in the middle of the interstate. Defendant was convicted of felony criminal endangerment, failing to use a lamp on a parked vehicle, failure to display warning devices on a disabled vehicle, and failure to park as close as practicable to the edge of the shoulder, among other things. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported Defendant's criminal endangerment conviction; (2) Defendant was not denied her right to be personally present at all critical stages of the trial; (3) Defendant was given effective assistance of counsel during trial; (4) the district court did not impose a greater sentence based on Defendant's refusal to admit guilt; but (5) the district court exceeded its authority when it restricted Defendant's eligibility for parole because it did not sentence Defendant to incarceration in a state prison. View "State v. Bekemans" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with violating a permanent order of protection. While incarcerated, Defendant was charged with tampering with a witness. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted on both counts. Defendant's written sentence contained terms and conditions that were not expressly stated during oral pronouncement of sentence. Defendant appealed, claiming his attorney was ineffective in offering erroneous jury instructions and in failing to file a motion to conform the written sentence to the orally-pronounced sentence. The Supreme Court held that Defendant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, as (1) Defendant was not prejudiced in the giving of the disputed instructions; and (2) the cause was remanded for another sentencing hearing in which Defendant would be presented with and allowed to respond to the additional terms and conditions contained in his written sentence that were not listed by the court during the sentencing hearing. View "State v. Andress" on Justia Law

Defendant's vehicle collided with Plaintiff's vehicle as Plaintiff was driving through an intersection. The collision damaged both vehicles and injured Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Plaintiff, alleging negligence. The district court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Defendant was not negligent nor did she proximately cause the accident, as the collision would not have occurred without Plaintiff's violation of the right-of-way statute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as (1) the evidence established factual issues concerning the parties' comparative negligence; and (2) the district court erred by concluding that the issue of whether Defendant was maintaining a proper lookout was not a genuine issue of material fact. View "Tonner v. Cirian" on Justia Law