Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of incest. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to a new trial due to law enforcement's warrantless monitoring and recording of his telephone conversations with his daughter, the victim, where (i) the recordings of Defendant's conversations with his daughter violated his rights under the Montana Constitution as interpreted by the Court in State v. Allen, but (ii) the admission of the recordings at trial was harmless error; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting sexually oriented photographs that Defendant took of his daughter. View "State v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with DUI, fourth or subsequent offense. The information provided that Defendant was previously convicted of qualifying DUI offenses in 2009, 1999, and 1992. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss due to invalidity of prior DUI convictions, challenging his 1992 DUI conviction on the basis of constitutional infirmity. The district court denied Defendant's motion, concluding that Defendant failed to meet his burden to come forward with affirmative evidence establishing that his 1992 conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution. Defendant subsequently entered a no contest plea to the DUI charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the court correctly concluded that Defendant failed to meet his burden to persuade the court that his 1992 conviction was constitutionally infirm. View "State v. Nixon" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual abuse of children pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced Defendant to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for seven years, with two years suspended upon several terms and conditions. The district court later revoked Defendant's suspended sentence after an evidentiary hearing at which it found Defendant in violation of the conditions of his sentence. The court then imposed a two-year commitment to the DOC and ordered that Defendant be designated a Level 3 sexual offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by elevating Defendant's sexual offender level designation from Level 1 to Level 3 upon revocation. View "State v. Claassen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of incest and attempted incest involving his daughter, incest and sexual intercourse without consent involving his step-daughter, and sexual intercourse without consent involving his sister-in-law. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not conduct a hearing on Defendant's posttrial allegation that some jurors slept through critical portions of the trial testimony; (2) Defendant was not subjected to double jeopardy when he was convicted of both incest and attempted incest, as the State charged and proved two separate and distinct transactions between Defendant and his daughter; and (3) the district court did not commit structural error when it failed to arraign Defendant on the amended charge of attempted sexual intercourse without consent. View "State v. Geren" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by partially denying his motion in limine to exclude video footage depicting administration of the Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test (PAST) administration without sound over Defendant's objection. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the admission of the PAST evidence by video was prejudicial error, as (1) the video was impermissibly used as substantive evidence of Defendant's intoxication without the State satisfying the requirement of State v. Damon and Mont. R. Evid. 702 to call an expert to testify regarding the reliability and accuracy of the PAST; (2) the potential of unfair prejudice in admitting the evidence outweighed its probative value, as it prompted the inference that Defendant failed the PAST; and (3) the error was not harmless. View "State v. Lozon" on Justia Law