Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant, holding that the district court did not err in determining that there was probable cause Defendant committed a crime that allowed the State to withdraw from the plea agreement and relieved the State's obligation to make a particular sentencing recommendation.Defendant pled guilty to assault with a weapon, criminal endangerment, and theft pursuant to a plea agreement. The State recommended a twenty-year sentence with no time suspended and treatment of Defendant as a persistent felony offender (PFO). Prior to sentencing, the State informed Defendant that it would withdraw from its plea agreement recommendation based on alleged crimes Defendant committed while in custody. The district court ultimately permitted the State to diverge from its sentencing recommendation in the plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly determined that Defendant waived his right to challenge the timeliness of the PFO notice; and (2) did not err in determining that Defendant had breached the plea agreement and that the State was entitled to withdraw from the guilty plea and recommend a harsher sentence. View "State v. Claus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's felony sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for felony driving under the influence (DUI) per se, holding that the presentence investigation report (PSI) in this case did not constitute competent proof if its accuracy is challenged.The district court found Defendant guilty of DUI per se and filed a PSI. The district court relied on the PSI and ordered a felony sentence of five years' incarceration with three years suspended. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that Defendant's sentence was unlawful because the district court erred by taking the disputed PSI, without further of Defendant's prior convictions, as competent proof of Defendant's prior convictions. View "State v. Letherman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a probation home visit, holding that the district court did not err in denying the suppression motion.Defendant was convicted of bail jumping and received a deferred sentence of four years. After a probation home visit resulted in the discovery of a "significant amount of methamphetamine" by a probation officer the State petitioned to revoke Defendant's deferred sentence. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the discovery of the drugs found in her home was the result of an unlawful search. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the officer did not violate the reasonable protocols for a probation home visit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that what began as a home visit turned into a search pursuant to the officer's plain view observation of drug paraphernalia, which provided probable cause for the search. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to seventy years in Montana State Prison for deliberate homicide, a felony, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's claim that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance when he advised Defendant and the court that mitigated deliberate homicide was not a lesser-included offense of deliberate homicide was more appropriate for postconviction relief; and (2) the district court did not err when it concluded that the State's offer of proof provided sufficient evidence to accept Defendant's Alford plea. View "State v. Bristow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant based on the counts of strangulation of a partner, assault of a partner, and child endangerment, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it permitted Dr. Tiffany Kuehl to testify about the legal and medical definitions of strangulation; (2) did not abuse its discretion by admitting Defendant's statements made in a separate legal proceeding; (3) did not err in assuring that no prejudicial juror misconduct occurred; and (4) erred in allowing a brief statement of the make-up of the population of the high-risk, violent crimes pod of the jail, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Sneed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying the motion filed by H.M., a youth held in detention, seeking to dismiss a formal petition brought by the State to adjudicate H.M. as a delinquent youth, alleging one count of misdemeanor resisting arrest and three counts of assault on a police officer, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion.As grounds to dismiss the petition H.M. argued that the State filed it one day beyond the seven-day time limit for such petitions against detained youths in Mont. Code Ann. 41-5-1401(2). The youth court declined to dismiss the petition, concluding that the State had good cause to file the petition and to detain H.M., outside the seven-day deadline. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the good cause exception in section 41-5-1401(2) applies to the youth court's decision not to dismiss an untimely petition charging a youth held in detention; and (2) the youth court properly denied H.M.'s motion to dismiss. View "In re H.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of aggravated kidnapping, sexual intercourse without consent, and partner or family member assault, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-303(2) is not facially unconstitutional because it permits a judge, rather than a jury, to apply factors that reduce the maximum penalty; (2) Defendant's level three offender designation was objectionable, not illegal, and Defendant did not properly reserve his objection to the designation during sentencing; and (3) Defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue that the maximum sentence for kidnapping was ten years based on mitigating factors and failing to object to Defendant's level-three sex offender designation. View "State v. Pine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court imposing costs, surcharges, and fees as recommended by Defendant's presentence investigation report in connection with his conviction of felony driving under the influence pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-401, holding that remand was required.Despite Defendant's objections that he could not afford to pay, the district court imposed a $5,000 fine, several costs, surcharges and fees. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for the court to strike the costs, surcharges, and fees from the judgment, holding that the court misapprehended the effect of the evidence at the sentencing hearing in concluding that Defendant had the ability to pay because his assets outweighed his liabilities. View "State v. Dowd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to transfer his criminal case to youth court, holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider Appellant's mitigating and unrequited evidence supporting transfer.Defendant had turned seventeen years old one month before the incident leading to his charges of sexual intercourse without consent, sexual abuse of children, and sexual assault. After a hearing to determine if the case should be transferred to youth court, the district court concluded that transferring the case would be in Defendant's best interests and would serve the interests of community protection but that the transfer should be denied based on the severity of the offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court misapprehended the evidence presented by Defendant suggesting that the nature of the offense did not warrant district court prosecution and, instead, impermissibly reached its conclusion based solely on the egregious facts of the offense. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court revoking Defendant's suspended sentences, holding that the district court had no authority to revoke Defendant's sentence and impose on a new sentence on the basis that it did.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in revoking the suspended portions of his sentences for failing to enroll or complete treatment prior to his release from prison. At issue was whether Defendant would be in immediate violation of his probation conditions upon release to the suspended portion of his sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence imposed upon Defendant, holding that the district court lacked the authority to revoke Defendant's sentence and impose a new sentence on the basis that Defendant did not have sex offender treatment arranged prior to release to the suspended portion of his sentence because no such requirement was contained in his probation conditions. View "State v. Pulst" on Justia Law