Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Bill B. Bokma, the petitioner, was arrested in December 2020 for felony driving under the influence of alcohol. He was released on the condition that he abstain from alcohol, which he failed to do, leading to another arrest. Bokma entered into a plea agreement with the State, which included alternative sentences contingent upon his acceptance into the Eighth Judicial District Adult Drug Treatment Court Program (ADTC). He pleaded guilty and was accepted into ADTC. However, Bokma violated the treatment court’s conditions, leading to a report of violation and a request for his termination from ADTC.The District Court initially dismissed the State’s petition to terminate Bokma from ADTC after he began engaging in the treatment program. However, due to repeated violations, the State again sought to terminate his participation in November 2022. Bokma stipulated that he was unable to complete ADTC, and the District Court revoked his suspended sentence, committing him to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for a three-year term with credit for twenty-seven days of jail time and eight days of elapsed time.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed Bokma’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, requesting additional credit for jail time and elapsed time. The court determined that Bokma was entitled to an additional twenty-two days of jail time credit, bringing the total to forty-nine days. The court also addressed the issue of whether the Montana Incentives and Interventions Grid (MIIG) should have been applied to Bokma’s revocation. The court concluded that although the District Court erred in classifying Bokma’s failure to complete ADTC as a non-compliance violation, the revocation was proper due to his repeated violations and failure to complete the treatment program.The Supreme Court granted Bokma’s petition in part, remanding the case to the District Court to amend its order to include the additional jail time credit. The court denied Bokma’s other claims and closed the matter. View "Bokma v. Olsen" on Justia Law

Beau Avidiya was convicted by a jury of Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Burglary, and Criminal Destruction of or Tampering with a Communication Device after breaking into his great-grandmother Myrtle Anderson's home, assaulting her, and stealing her purse. Anderson, who was 87 years old, suffered a broken finger and other injuries during the attack. She did not initially recognize her assailant but later evidence, including surveillance footage and green paint found on Avidiya, linked him to the crime.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court of Lincoln County presided over the trial. Avidiya requested jury instructions on the lesser-included offenses of Assault, Theft, and Trespass, but the District Court denied these requests, stating that the evidence did not support such instructions. The jury subsequently convicted Avidiya on all charges, and he was sentenced to twenty years with fifteen years suspended.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. Avidiya argued that the District Court abused its discretion by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offenses. The Supreme Court examined whether the District Court had erred in its decision, focusing on whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the lesser-included offense instructions.The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. It found that the evidence presented did not support the lesser-included offenses. The court noted that the violent nature of the assault and the circumstances of the burglary did not provide a rational basis for the jury to convict Avidiya of the lesser offenses instead of the greater ones. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment and sentence. View "State v. Avidiya" on Justia Law

Garrett Alan Lee, a 25-year-old, engaged in an online conversation with an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a 12-year-old girl. Lee discussed meeting the girl for sex and was apprehended by law enforcement when he arrived at the arranged location. He was charged with Sexual Abuse of Children under Montana law and pleaded guilty.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court sentenced Lee to 100 years at the Montana State Prison, with 65 years suspended, and imposed a 25-year parole restriction. Lee appealed, arguing that the mandatory 25-year parole restriction was unconstitutional and that the District Court violated his due process rights by considering information from a prior psychosexual examination not admitted into evidence.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that Lee's constitutional and statutory arguments concerning the mandatory parole restriction were not properly before the court because he was not sentenced under the mandatory minimum provision. Instead, the District Court imposed the parole restriction under its discretionary sentencing power. The court also found that Lee's due process rights were not violated, as he had the opportunity to rebut or correct any information in the presentence investigation report, and the information was not materially false.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment, concluding that Lee's sentence was legal and within the statutory parameters. The court declined to review the constitutional and statutory claims related to the mandatory parole restriction and did not find plain error in the due process claim. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

Joseph Eugene Garcia was charged with multiple counts of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual abuse of children, involving the repeated rape of an underage boy, C.C., over five years. On the day of the trial, Garcia entered an Alford plea to a single amended charge of felony sexual assault, and the State agreed to drop the original charges and recommend a sentence of forty years, with twenty years suspended. The plea agreement did not address the sex offender tier level designation.The District Court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) and a psychosexual evaluation (PSE), which were completed by Dr. Robert Page. Dr. Page recommended a tier level 1 sexual offender designation, indicating a low risk of re-offense. However, he noted limitations in the risk assessment tools and suggested that additional victims were likely. At the sentencing hearing, the State presented testimony from several witnesses, including Sergeant Kaylin Cunningham, who provided evidence of Garcia's grooming tactics and possession of items used to manipulate and control his victims. Victim impact statements from C.C. and his mother expressed concerns about Garcia's future risk to children.The District Court sentenced Garcia to forty years in prison, with twenty years suspended, and designated him as a tier level 2 sexual offender, citing the extensive use of grooming tactics and the likelihood of multiple victims. Garcia appealed, arguing that the District Court improperly considered evidence beyond the psychosexual evaluation report in determining his tier level designation.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that the District Court correctly interpreted the statute, which allows the court to consider a broad range of information, including victim impact statements and other relevant evidence, when designating a sexual offender tier level. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the District Court's designation of Garcia as a tier level 2 sexual offender. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Ronald L. Golas was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (fourth or subsequent offense), operating a motor vehicle while his license was suspended, and failure to carry proof of insurance. These charges stemmed from a one-vehicle crash where Golas was found with an open can of beer and a high alcohol concentration. He had prior DUI convictions and a suspended license. Golas pleaded not guilty and was released on bail with conditions. However, he failed to appear at pretrial conferences and had several positive alcohol tests, leading to a motion to revoke his release and the issuance of a bench warrant.The trial date was rescheduled multiple times due to various issues, including Golas's failure to resolve the outstanding warrant. Eventually, Golas was taken into custody, and a new trial date was set. He filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, which was denied. Golas later requested a change-of-plea hearing and entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the felony DUI charge in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges. He was sentenced to 24 months in the Department of Corrections and a consecutive 5-year suspended term in the Montana State Prison.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Golas waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial by not specifically reserving this right in his plea agreement. The court found that Golas's plea was voluntary and intelligent, and there were no jurisdictional defects. Consequently, the court affirmed the District Court's decision. View "State v. Golas" on Justia Law

David Damon pleaded guilty to felony incest and was sentenced to fifty years in prison with ten years suspended. His parole eligibility was contingent upon completing Phases I and II of the prison's sex offender treatment program. After ten years without being enrolled in Phase II, Damon filed a motion to modify his sentence to allow participation in an external residential treatment program. The Eighth Judicial District Court denied his motion, citing a lack of authority to modify the judgment. Damon appealed.The Cascade County District Court initially sentenced Damon in February 2014 after he pleaded guilty to one count of felony incest, dismissing two other charges as part of a plea agreement. Damon was designated a Tier II sex offender and required to complete specific treatment phases before being eligible for parole. In 2017, the Montana Legislature mandated the Department of Corrections (DOC) to adopt evidence-based programs, leading to the replacement of the SABER program with the SO-ICPM program in 2023. Damon argued that the elimination of the SABER program left him unable to meet his sentence requirements and sought modification to attend a residential program.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the District Court lacked the legal authority to modify Damon's sentence, as the DOC's programming changes did not render the sentence factually erroneous. The court noted that the new SO-ICPM program provided equivalent treatment to the SABER program, allowing Damon to fulfill his sentence requirements. The court also clarified that any request for placement in a residential treatment program must be made through the DOC, not the court. Thus, the District Court's denial of Damon's motion was upheld. View "State v. Damon" on Justia Law

Danielle Wood was charged with deliberate homicide for the shooting death of Matthew LaFriniere. The State alleged that Wood purposely or knowingly caused LaFriniere's death by shooting him with a firearm. The case involved a tumultuous relationship between Wood and LaFriniere, including a custody battle over their child. On the evening of May 2, 2018, Wood received a text message purportedly from LaFriniere, stating he was delayed and instructing her to keep their child. Later that evening, LaFriniere was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds.The Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders County, convicted Wood of deliberate homicide. Wood appealed, raising several issues, including the sufficiency of evidence for the State's alternative theory of accountability for deliberate homicide and the clarity of the jury verdict form. The District Court had allowed the State to amend the Information to include an alternative theory of accountability, which Wood contested. The jury was instructed on both direct deliberate homicide and accountability for deliberate homicide, but the verdict form did not distinguish between the two theories.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The Court found that the District Court erroneously submitted the State's alternative theory of accountability to the jury without sufficient supporting evidence. The Court also found that the verdict form provided to the jury was ambiguous and did not allow the jury to unambiguously declare Wood's guilt or innocence regarding each of the charged offenses or theories of criminal liability. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed Wood's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Wood" on Justia Law

The State of Montana charged Matthew Jason Welch with six counts of Deceptive Practices and four counts of Theft by Deception. Welch faced varying prison terms depending on the value of the property involved. On January 20, 2022, Welch entered a non-binding plea agreement, pleading guilty to all counts. The agreement recommended a sentence of 10 years with five suspended for each count, with some sentences running concurrently and others consecutively. However, the District Court rejected this recommendation and sentenced Welch to 10 years for each count, all running consecutively, resulting in a net sentence of 50 years with 50 suspended. Welch appealed the four illegal sentences, leading to a remand for resentencing within statutory limits.The District Court resentenced Welch to three years for each of the four counts, all running consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 30 years with 30 suspended and 12 years DOC. Welch then moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing it was involuntary due to the illegal sentence, but the District Court denied the motion.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Welch was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because the State accepted a reduced sentence within legal limits, and Welch received the benefit of his bargain. The court also noted that Welch was aware the court was not bound by the plea agreement. The court affirmed the denial of Welch's motion to withdraw his guilty plea but remanded to correct the restitution amounts in the amended judgment to reflect the court's oral pronouncement. View "State v. Welch" on Justia Law

The defendant, Justin Guy Zeno Shawn Wolf Mason, was convicted of felony Partner and Family Member Assault (PFMA), misdemeanor Unlawful Restraint, and misdemeanor Resisting Arrest. He received a suspended five-year sentence for the PFMA charge, with probationary conditions, and concurrent six-month suspended sentences for the misdemeanors. Mason was required to comply with all laws and maintain contact with probation and parole.The Tenth Judicial District Court, Fergus County, revoked Mason's suspended sentence after he failed to report to probation and parole and was charged with misdemeanor assault following an altercation with a security guard. Mason argued that the court erred in finding him in violation of his probation terms, denying his motion to introduce video evidence, and revoking his suspended sentence.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the State had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Mason violated the conditions of his suspended sentence by being charged with misdemeanor assault. The court noted that a single violation is sufficient to support revocation. The court also held that the exclusion of the body camera footage was not prejudicial to Mason, as his testimony established conduct meriting revocation. Additionally, the court declined to exercise plain error review regarding the banishment provision, as it was part of a separate pre-trial diversion agreement and not directly related to the conditions Mason was accused of violating.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of Mason's suspended sentence, concluding that the State met its evidentiary burden, the exclusion of the video was not prejudicial, and the District Court did not commit plain error. View "State v. Mason" on Justia Law

The case involves Lewis Leon Bryson, who was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent (SIWOC) following a jury trial. On May 2, 2020, Bryson's neighbor observed him spraying a naked and screaming Valerie Moreni with a hose in his backyard. When police arrived, Moreni was found unresponsive and covered by a blanket. She later claimed Bryson had raped her. Medical examination revealed she was highly intoxicated and had injuries consistent with her allegations. Bryson was arrested and charged with aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (ASIWOC), SIWOC, tampering with evidence, and obstructing a peace officer.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, presided over the trial. Bryson and Moreni provided conflicting testimonies about their relationship and the events leading up to the incident. Bryson claimed their interactions were consensual and that Moreni was aware of their sexual activities. The jury found Bryson guilty of SIWOC and obstructing a peace officer.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. Bryson argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not proposing correct jury instructions and that the District Court erred by excluding evidence about Moreni’s drinking habits and alcohol withdrawal symptoms. The Supreme Court held that the jury instructions were correct and that Bryson’s counsel was not deficient. The court also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence about Moreni’s past drinking habits, as it allowed sufficient evidence regarding her condition and credibility.The Supreme Court affirmed Bryson’s conviction, concluding that the instructions and evidentiary rulings were appropriate and did not prejudice Bryson’s defense. View "State v. Bryson" on Justia Law