Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Robert Arthur Wing appealed his conviction on felony driving while under the influence of alcohol (fourth or subsequent offense). Appellant argued at trial that he had not been driving on the day of his arrest, and that another man, Michael Halverson, had been the driver before the vehicle was disabled. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the district court abused its discretion by preventing a defense witness from testifying about a statement against interest made by Halverson. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Halverson's alleged statements should have been admitted into evidence, and the jury should have been given the opportunity to consider it. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Montana v. Wing" on Justia Law

Defendant Laurie Kay Corbino appealed a district court's judgment and order of commitment. Defendant entered into a plea agreement wherein she pled guilty to felony burglary. Defendant admitted to entering the Lendmans’ residence and taking cosmetic items that belonged to them. In the presentence investigation report, Mrs. Lendman submitted an affidavit of pecuniary loss wherein she listed as missing two large bags of personal items and a large gold ring with opal, emeralds and diamonds. Because the other items were recovered, the only restitution Mrs. Lendman requested was $1,500 for the ring. Defendant admitted to taking the personal items, but denied taking the ring. The District Court also determined that "with no current resources, [the Defendant did not have the] ability to pay for the type of programs that she needs if she were on probation, including the [Cognitive Principles and Restructuring] program." Defense counsel objected to Defendant's sentence on the grounds that she was being incarcerated based on her inability to pay. The court denied Defendant's objection because, even though she had a counselor for her drug and alcohol addictions, Defendant's compulsive thievery was different than addiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the District Court properly applied the law to the facts of this case, and affirmed the district court's decision. View "Montana v. Corbino" on Justia Law

In 2007, Defendant Ralph Fox was charged with two counts of felony sexual assault against minor females, CS (Count I) and HS (Count II). A federal grand jury handed down an indictment in the United States District Court charging Defendant with three felony offenses: sexual exploitation of children, receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography. He was convicted on all charges and sentenced to federal prison for 110 years. Subsequently, Defendant moved to dismiss the State action against him on the ground of double jeopardy. The District Court dismissed one count of sexual assault and Defendant was convicted on the remaining count. Nevertheless, the court sentenced Defendant to two fifty-year sentences (one for each count of sexual assault) and five years for failing to register as a sex offender. The fifty-year sentences were to run concurrently with each other and with the federal sentence. The five-year sentence was to run consecutively to the fifty-year sentences for assault but concurrently with the federal sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing the District Court erred when it sentenced him to a term of fifty years for the dismissed assault charge. He also claimed the court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the remaining assault charge. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part. The case was remanded to the District Court for correction of the illegally-imposed sentence pertaining to Count II. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss Count I. View "Montana v. Fox" on Justia Law

Defendant Kingsley Ariegwe appealed a district court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Defendant virtually met a fifteen-year-old female in an internet chat room. After chatting, the two telephone one another, and eventually met in person. Allegedly a sexual encounter occurred at that in-person meeting. Shortly thereafter, the fifteen-year-old told a friend that she had sex with a 32-year-old man. Unknown to either girls, the phone conversation was inadvertently recorded on an answering machine at the friend's house. The tape of the conversation was preserved, and was at issue in this appeal. Defendant was charged with sexual intercourse without consent, attempted sexual intercourse without consent, and unlawful transactions with children. In his opening statement at trial, Defendant told the jury about the taped conversation and implied that the jury would get to listen to the recording. However, defense counsel never offered the tape into evidence. He later noted the omission in his closing statement. Defendant appealed his conviction. The district court determined that Defendant was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to introduce the tape recording into evidence. On appeal to the Supreme Court ,Defendant argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment and dismissed Defendant's application for relief. View "Ariegwe v. Montana" on Justia Law

Defendant Shawn Stoner appealed a district court's order to deny his motion to dismiss several marijuana charges against him. The sole issue on appeal was whether the District Court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss after he acquired a medical marijuana card. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Defendant was required to have obtained and be in possession of a valid registry identification card at the time of the offense for which he sought immunity from prosecution. Because Defendant did not obtain a registry identification card until after he was charged, he was not entitled to dismissal of the charges against him. View "Montana v. Stoner" on Justia Law

Defendant Larry Bomar appealed a district court order that dismissed his petition for postconviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Defendant alleged that his trial counsel's failure to present certain expert evidence at trial rendered prejudiced him and therefore was a violation of his constitutional rights. Finding that counsel's decision not to present certain evidence was a strategic decision that did not amount to a violation of his constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny him postconviction relief. View "Montana v. Sartain" on Justia Law

Defendant Larry Bomar appealed a district court order that dismissed his petition for postconviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Defendant alleged that his trial counsel's failure to present certain expert evidence at trial rendered prejudiced him and therefore was a violation of his constitutional rights. Finding that counsel's decision not to present certain evidence was a strategic decision that did not amount to a violation of his constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny him postconviction relief. View "Bomar v. Montana" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Robin Lewis appealed a district court judgment that found him ineligible for parole. In 2010, Defendant was charged with aggravated assault for the abuse of his minor sons. Nothing in Defendant's plea agreement addressed the district court's authority to restrict Defendant's eligibility for parole, and it contained no promise from the State regarding such a restriction. Defendant took exception to a subsequent presentencing investigation report (PSI) that recommended the court impose a twenty-year sentence with fifteen years suspended. The PSI recommended that Defendant not be considered eligible for release until he completed a chemical dependency treatment, anger management program and a mental health assessment. The court eventually sentenced Defendant to twenty years with ten years suspended without parole. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and Defendant's sentence. View "Montana v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant William Parrish appealed a district court's decision to deny him postconviction relief. Defendant was convicted in 2008 of criminal endangerment, and the Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. In his petition for postconviction relief, Defendant argued that he was sentenced based on erroneous information about his prior criminal record, and that the erroneous information was submitted by the County Attorney because of anger toward him. The district court denied Defendant's petition because Defendant had already raised the issue of the accuracy of his prior criminal history at sentencing. Since that issue was known and could have been raised in the direct appeal, it could not be raised again for postconviction relief. For the first time on appeal, Defendant claimed his appellate attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue of the erroneous sentencing in the 2010 direct appeal. The Supreme Court declined to consider the issue raised for the first time on appeal; further the Court found that Defendant presented no evidence his sentence was based on the precise number of prior felony convictions he had, and no showing that that fact would have garnered him any material relief had it been raised on appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "Parrish v. Montana" on Justia Law

Appellant Buddy Wade Pirello appealed a district court order that denied his motion to dismiss one felony charge of criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Appellant argued that the pending charges should be dismissed on the grounds that the hashish oil that led to his charges was legally possessed pursuant to the Montana Marijuana Act (MMA). On appeal, Appellant claimed that the MMA’s exception for "usable marijuana" necessarily includes the hashish for which he was charged because the term is defined as "any mixture or preparation of marijuana." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that hashish does not fall within a narrow exception to the MMA. Accordingly, the Court held that the District Court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the charge of criminal possession of dangerous drugs. View "Montana v. Pirello" on Justia Law