Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In July 2022, Robert Brady was charged with felony Assault with a Weapon after an incident involving his wife, stepdaughter, and stepdaughter's husband. Brady allegedly pointed a shotgun at his stepdaughter's husband and threatened to kill him. Brady appeared intoxicated and claimed self-defense. He was released on the condition of no contact with the victims. In August 2022, Brady pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial. In December 2022, the State petitioned to revoke Brady's release for noncompliance with alcohol monitoring conditions, and he was jailed in January 2023.Brady and the State then signed a plea agreement where Brady would plead guilty in exchange for a three-year deferred sentence recommendation. The agreement restricted Brady from seeking early discharge until two years after sentencing. At the change of plea hearing, Brady pleaded guilty, and the court accepted the plea. However, the court later expressed concerns about following the plea agreement due to Brady's violations and lack of accountability. The prosecutor's comments during sentencing suggested the plea deal was too lenient, leading the court to impose a five-year deferred sentence with additional conditions.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by undermining the recommended sentence. The court held that a district court does not have unilateral authority to restrict a defendant's right to seek early termination of a sentence under Montana law. However, a defendant may agree to such a restriction in a plea agreement. The court vacated Brady's sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge, directing specific performance of the plea agreement in its entirety. View "State v. Brady" on Justia Law

William James Pillans was arrested on February 12, 2018, and charged with Assault with a Weapon. He was released on his own recognizance but was later re-arrested for violating release terms. Subsequently, he faced additional charges for assaulting an officer and threatening corrections officers, leading to multiple arrests and bench warrants. Pillans entered plea agreements in three cases, resulting in concurrent suspended sentences. However, his sentences were revoked multiple times due to further arrests and violations, leading to additional periods of incarceration.The Eleventh Judicial District Court of Flathead County initially sentenced Pillans to concurrent five-year suspended sentences in three cases. After multiple revocations, the court recalculated his credit for time served and elapsed time, ultimately sentencing him to five years with the Department of Corrections with no time suspended. Pillans appealed the District Court's calculation of his credit for time served and elapsed time.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Pillans was not entitled to credit for time served in DC-18-098 between his third arrest and his third release on recognizance, as he was not detained in that case during that period. The court also found that the District Court erred in calculating credit for time served in DC-18-329, as Pillans was not detained in that case until served with a bench warrant. Additionally, the court corrected the calculation of time served between Pillans's original sentencing and first revocation, and between his first and second revocations. The court also determined that Pillans was entitled to additional elapsed time credit for specific periods where no violations were recorded.The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court to adjust Pillans's credit for time served and elapsed time accordingly. View "State v. Pillans" on Justia Law

Charles Ament was charged with felony DUI, his fourth or subsequent offense, after a single-vehicle crash in Flathead County. Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Jon Raymond testified that Ament smelled of alcohol, had difficulty balancing, made strange statements, admitted to drinking three beers, and asked not to be investigated for DUI. Field sobriety tests indicated Ament was under the influence, and a blood draw showed a 0.187 blood alcohol content. Ament represented himself at trial with standby counsel and did not testify or offer any witnesses.The District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District allowed Ament one day to enter a plea, after which he pleaded not guilty. At a pretrial hearing, the court granted Ament’s motion to represent himself, advising that standby counsel could not interrupt proceedings to issue advice. During trial, Ament objected to Trooper Raymond’s testimony as leading, which the judge overruled. During closing arguments, Ament attempted to discuss his version of the facts, leading the court to instruct the jury to disregard statements not made under oath.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Ament one day to enter his plea. The court also found that Ament did not preserve his objections to Trooper Raymond’s testimony and thus applied plain error review, concluding that Ament did not demonstrate that the admission of this evidence denied him a fundamental right. Regarding the District Court’s comments during closing arguments, the Supreme Court held that the comments did not compromise the fundamental fairness of the trial or the integrity of the judicial process. Finally, the court found that the jury instructions on the presumption of innocence were proper and did not warrant reversal for plain error. View "State v. Ament" on Justia Law

In 2014, Susan Joanne Pajnich was driving with a .280 blood alcohol content and hit a woman who was stopped on the side of the road, causing severe injuries. Pajnich left the scene without providing aid. She pleaded guilty to negligent vehicular assault and received a ten-year sentence with seven years suspended, along with an order to pay restitution.In December 2017, Pajnich began the suspended portion of her sentence. Less than a year later, the State petitioned to revoke her suspended sentence due to violations, including driving under the influence, consuming alcohol, and failing to pay restitution. Pajnich entered a plea agreement admitting to the violations in exchange for the State dropping the DUI charge. The agreement included a recommendation for a seven-year commitment with five years suspended and 111 days of credit for elapsed time. The District Court revoked her suspended sentence and imposed the agreed-upon sentence.Pajnich completed the non-suspended portion of her sentence and returned to community supervision in June 2020. In March 2022, a report of violation was filed alleging further violations, including consuming alcohol and methamphetamine, and failing to make restitution payments. Pajnich admitted to all violations, and the District Court imposed a five-year commitment with credit for ten months of elapsed time and time served. Pajnich appealed this order.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and held that Pajnich could not challenge the calculation of elapsed time on appeal because she did not object to it during the revocation proceedings and there was no mistake of fact. The court affirmed the District Court's decision, concluding that the sentence was legal and the calculation of elapsed time was supported by the record. View "State v. Pajnich" on Justia Law

Chad Williams, representing himself, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming he is entitled to elapsed time credit, or street time credit, which the Missoula County District Court did not award. Williams argued that he should receive credit for the time he was on probation from November 25, 2013, to August 16, 2016. The State responded that Williams's petition should be denied, and Williams subsequently filed a "Motion for Relief" regarding the extensions of time granted to the State to respond.Williams entered a guilty plea to attempted deliberate homicide in the Missoula County District Court and was sentenced to fifty years in the Montana State Prison, with twenty-five years suspended, plus a consecutive ten-year term for use of a weapon. He was paroled on May 30, 2007, but his parole was revoked multiple times before he began serving the suspended portion of his sentence on November 25, 2013. The State filed a Petition to Revoke on April 5, 2016, followed by four supplemental petitions. In May 2017, the District Court imposed a twenty-five-year sentence upon revocation.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and concluded that Williams did not meet his burden to demonstrate a facially invalid sentence. The court noted that the 2015 version of the revocation statute applied to Williams, which allowed the court discretion to award elapsed time credit. The District Court considered the time period Williams claimed but found that he had committed multiple violations during that time, including drug use and absconding. The Supreme Court held that Williams's sentence upon revocation was within statutory parameters and that he had waived any claim of statutory defect by failing to object or appeal the denial of elapsed time credit.The Supreme Court of Montana denied and dismissed Williams's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and his Motion for Relief. View "Williams v. Green" on Justia Law

In April 2019, the State of Montana charged Cheyene Leilani-Amber Zielie with several offenses, including felony possession of dangerous drugs. In September 2019, she pled guilty to the felony charge and received a three-year suspended sentence. In March 2021, the State filed a petition to revoke her suspended sentence due to violations, but later moved to dismiss the petition with prejudice, which the District Court granted. Subsequently, in May 2021, the State filed a second petition to revoke her suspended sentence based on new criminal charges.The District Court of the Eighth Judicial District initially dismissed the first petition with prejudice, which led to confusion about whether the entire case was dismissed. When the State filed the second petition, the District Court issued an arrest warrant, and the case proceeded. During a hearing in November 2022, the defense argued that the case had been dismissed with prejudice, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, interpreting the original dismissal as pertaining only to the petition, not the entire case. The court then revoked Zielie’s suspended sentence and sentenced her to three years with the Department of Corrections.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the District Court only had the authority to dismiss the petition to revoke, not the entire sentence, and that the dismissal order was a clerical error. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss but reversed the decision regarding the additional 66 days of credit for time served. The case was remanded for resentencing to include the additional credit. View "State v. Zielie" on Justia Law

Ryan Bloomer was charged with his fourth DUI offense in 2021 and pleaded guilty in 2022. Before he was sentenced for this offense, he was charged with a fifth DUI in April 2023, to which he also pleaded guilty. The District Court sentenced Bloomer for both offenses during the same hearing in May 2023. For the fourth DUI, Bloomer was sentenced under the statute in effect at the time of the offense, § 61-8-731, MCA (2019), to thirteen months at the Department of Corrections (DOC) followed by a five-year suspended sentence. For the fifth DUI, he was sentenced under the new statute, § 61-8-1008(2), MCA (2021), to a concurrent nine-year term with the DOC, with five years suspended.The Fourth Judicial District Court sentenced Bloomer for both DUI offenses during the same hearing. Bloomer challenged the sentence for his fifth DUI, arguing that it was unlawful because he had not been "previously sentenced" for his fourth DUI under § 61-8-1008(1), MCA, before being sentenced for his fifth DUI under § 61-8-1008(2), MCA.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the plain language of § 61-8-1008(2), MCA, requires that a defendant must have been previously sentenced for a fourth DUI before being sentenced for a fifth DUI. Since Bloomer was sentenced for both offenses contemporaneously, the court concluded that the District Court imposed an unlawful sentence for the fifth DUI. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's sentence for the fifth DUI and remanded the case for resentencing under § 61-8-1008(1), MCA. View "State v. Bloomer" on Justia Law

James Houston Parker was convicted in May 2023 by a jury in the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, for two counts of felony tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. The charges stemmed from an incident on June 9, 2022, where officers responded to a call about an assaulted woman, P.H., who had severe facial injuries. P.H. had been at Parker's residence earlier that evening. Officers found blood and bleach at Parker's residence, and Parker had blood and bleach on his shoes. Parker was uncooperative during evidence collection, and his fingerprint was found on a bleach bottle in a nearby dumpster.The District Court instructed the jury to convict Parker based on him acting "knowingly" rather than "purposely," which Parker did not object to at trial. The jury acquitted Parker of aggravated assault but convicted him on the tampering charges. Parker was sentenced to six years in the Department of Corrections.Parker appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, arguing that the District Court committed plain error by using the incorrect mental state in the jury instructions, that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the instruction, and that the prosecutor's actions constituted misconduct. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that although the instruction was erroneous, the overwhelming evidence showed Parker acted with purpose. The court held that the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice or undermine the trial's fairness.The Supreme Court also found that Parker's ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed because there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome even if the objection had been made. Lastly, the court determined that the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct that deprived Parker of a fair trial. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed Parker's conviction. View "State v. Parker" on Justia Law

Ryan Gabriel appealed an Eleventh Judicial District Court order affirming the Justice Court’s order of protection in favor of Kai Groenke, an attorney for Gabriel’s former partner. Gabriel had sent a series of threatening and harassing emails to Groenke, including threats of professional disciplinary action, accusations of mental illness, and threats of violence. Groenke obtained a temporary order of protection, which Gabriel violated by continuing to send harassing communications.The Justice Court held a hearing where Groenke, her father Fritz, and her husband testified about Gabriel’s threatening behavior and its impact on Groenke’s mental health and safety. Gabriel argued that his communications were provoked by Groenke and that he was the victim of harassment. The Justice Court found Gabriel’s behavior to be consistent with stalking and granted a ten-year order of protection.Gabriel appealed to the District Court, which reviewed the case and affirmed the Justice Court’s decision. Gabriel then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and upheld the lower courts' decisions. The court found that Gabriel’s conduct met the statutory definition of stalking, causing substantial emotional distress and fear for safety. The court rejected Gabriel’s arguments about the relevance of the Oregon trial court’s stay and his claims of provocation. The court also declined to address Gabriel’s First Amendment argument, as it was raised for the first time in his reply brief. The Supreme Court affirmed the Justice Court’s order of protection. View "Groenke v. Gabriel" on Justia Law

Jonathan Partain left his cell phone in his 15-year-old daughter's room and remotely triggered it to record her while she was changing clothes. His daughter discovered the recording, showed it to her mother, deleted it, and confronted Partain, who admitted to his actions. The State charged Partain with Sexual Abuse of Children and Surreptitious Visual Observation or Recordation in a Residence. Partain pleaded guilty to Sexual Abuse of Children in exchange for the dismissal of the second charge and an amendment to the first charge to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence.The Fourth Judicial District Court accepted Partain's guilty plea and dismissed the second charge without prejudice. However, at sentencing, the court dismissed the Sexual Abuse of Children charge sua sponte, reinstated the previously dismissed charge of Surreptitious Visual Observation or Recordation, and found Partain guilty of that charge. The court imposed a two-year deferred sentence for the misdemeanor charge. The State appealed, arguing that the court had no authority to dismiss the guilty plea and reinstate the dismissed charge.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and held that the District Court had no statutory authority to dismiss the felony charge after accepting Partain's guilty plea and to amend or reinstate the dismissed misdemeanor charge. The court found that the District Court's actions violated the separation of powers by usurping the role of the prosecutor in charging decisions. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case for resentencing on the Sexual Abuse of Children conviction. View "State v. Partain" on Justia Law