Archive | Probationary conditions

RSS feed for this section

State v. Brave

State v. Brave, 2016 MT 178 (July 26, 2016) (Shea, J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in ordering Brave to pay $25,000 in restitution, and (2) whether the district court erred in imposing several probation conditions.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) yes.

Affirmed (1) and reversed (2)

Facts: The state charged Brave with sexual intercourse without consent on the basis of his having committed the offense with AC, who then became pregnant and gave birth to twins. At the time of the offense, Brave was 18 and AC was 14. In May 2014, Brave pled guilty to an amended charge of criminal endangerment, a felony.

Procedural Posture & Holding: The district court held a restitution hearing in September 2014, and a sentencing hearing in November 2014, after which it issued a restitution order ordering Brave to pay $35,667.36 to AC’s mother, DC, which included $25,000 for DC’s lost wages during a 10-week FLA leave of absence that she took after the twins were born.…

State v. Crawford

State v. Crawford, 2016 MT 96 (April 26, 2016) (McKinnon, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in denying Crawford’s motion to suppress; (2) whether Crawford received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) whether the district court improperly denied Crawford’s third discovery request; (4) whether the district court erred by denying Crawford’s post-trial motion to dismiss; and (5) whether the district court adequately addressed Crawford’s complaints about his assigned counsel.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) no; (3) no; (4) no; and (5) yes.

Affirmed

Facts: Crawford was released on parole in December 2010 after incarceration at Montana State Prison for multiple drug-related felony convictions. As a condition of his parole, he was required to obtain written permission from his parole officer before traveling outside of Silver Bow, Beaverhead, Jefferson or Deer Lodge counties.…

State v. Robertson

State v. Robertson, 2015 MT 266 (Sept. 8, 2015) (McGrath, C.J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: Whether the probationary condition prohibiting Robertson from having contact with his son and daughter violates his statutory and constitutional rights.

Short Answer: No.

Affirmed

Facts: Dustin Robertson was charged with kidnapping the mother of his young children, Chalsea Cady, by restraining her at their apartment in July 2011; misdemeanor endangering the welfare of children; and two counts of felony partner/family member assault. He pled guilty to one offense of criminal endangerment of Cady for physically assaulting her, and the state dropped the remaining charges.

The presentence investigation reported a history of physical and mental abuse of Cady by Robertson, and proposed a probationary condition prohibiting Robertson from having any contact with Cady unless she initiated it through the DOC.…

State v. Graves

State v. Graves, 2015 MT 262 (Sept. 1, 2015) (Shea, J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by revoking Graves’ suspended sentence before it began; (2) whether Graves was required to sign his conditions of probation before he was subject to those conditions; (3) whether the district court erred in denying the admission of Graves’ out-of-state court records; (4) whether the district court could impose a sentence to the MSP when revoking a 1995 sentence to the DOC; (5) whether the district court erred by denying Graves credit for time served while incarcerated in Oregon after the revocation petition had been filed but before he was transferred to Montana.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) no, as the reason he didn’t sign was that he escaped; (3) yes; (4) no; (5) yes.…

In the Matter of ADT

In the Matter of ADT, 2015 MT 178 (June 30, 2015) (McKinnon, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court improperly applied new probationary conditions prior to finding ADT violated the terms of his youth court disposition; and (2) whether the district court properly determined that ADT violated conditions of his youth court disposition.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes.

Affirmed

Facts: ADT was adjudicated a delinquent youth and juvenile offender in February 2012, upon his admission to one count each of sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent. The most suitable place for ADT to receive sex offender treatment was Pine Hills. However, because ADT was 10 months away from turning 18, and the program normally takes 17-24 months, Youth Court services was concerned he would not be able to complete the program.…

State v. Nauman

State v. Nauman, 2014 MT 248 (Sept. 16, 2014) (5-0) Wheat, J.

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by departing from the plea agreement without giving Nauman the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea; (2) whether the district court erred by imposing particular conditions on Nauman’s sentence; and (3) whether the term “pornography” in condition 31 of Nauman’s sentence is unconstitutionally vague.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) no; and (3) the Court declines to address this issue as it was not raised before the district court.

Reversed in part & affirmed in part

State v. Bullplume

State v. Bullplume, 2013 MT 169 (June 25, 2013) (5-0) (McKinnon, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether Bullplume waived appellate review of the requirement that he pay for his court-ordered evaluations and treatment, and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing certain conditions on Bullplume’s sentence, related specifically to sexual offenders.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) no.

Affirmed