In State v. Jones, Michelle Jones was convicted of felony criminal distribution of dangerous drugs after selling marijuana to a confidential informant; she appealed the denial of her motion to suppress a warrantless recording of a telephone conversation arranging the sale and certain conditions imposed on her deferred sentence. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the recording was lawful under established precedents allowing one-party consent monitoring of telephone calls without a warrant under the state constitution. On sentencing, the court upheld most probation conditions and the restitution order but reversed the alcohol-related condition, finding no sufficient nexus between it and either Jones or the underlying drug offense. The case was remanded with instructions to strike that condition from the sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

Genevieve Baker pled guilty to two counts of vehicular homicide while under the influence of alcohol after a 2006 drunk-driving crash on U.S. Highway 2 that killed her sister and another driver. The district court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 40 years in prison with 20 suspended, plus conditions including a 40-year prohibition on operating a motor vehicle. Baker appealed, claiming the sentence violated Montana's correctional policies under § 46-18-101, MCA, her constitutional rights on grounds of racial discrimination, and statutory limits on driving restrictions under §§ 46-18-201(4)(o) and -202(1)(f), MCA. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the sentence was legal, Baker failed to support her constitutional arguments with adequate briefing or evidence, and her challenge to the driving condition was an unpreserved objection that could not be reviewed for the first time on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Maki, the defendant appealed his guilty pleas to state felony charges of criminal possession of dangerous drugs and precursors, contending that the charges should have been dismissed on double jeopardy grounds because the same conduct had already resulted in a federal supervised release revocation and additional imprisonment. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss. The court held that the federal revocation proceeding did not amount to punishment for double jeopardy purposes under § 46-11-504, MCA, or Article II, Section 25 of the Montana Constitution, as it involved enforcement of release conditions rather than new criminal charges or a second prosecution for the same offense. The decision rested on the distinction between revocation proceedings and ordinary criminal prosecutions, along with the absence of supporting authority equating a revocation sentence with punishment for the underlying conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

Martin Mariano Baca was convicted after a jury trial of felony partner or family member assault and felony tampering with a witness, based on an altercation with his girlfriend and a subsequent letter to her. He petitioned for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue the PFMA should be a misdemeanor due to insufficient prior qualifying convictions, failing to file a direct appeal, and other trial preparation and defense issues. The Montana Supreme Court reversed the felony PFMA sentence, holding that one out-of-state prior conviction did not qualify under the statute so the offense was a misdemeanor, but affirmed the district court's denial of the remaining postconviction claims after finding no prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance.

criminal law

The case involved MBNA America Bank seeking confirmation of an arbitration award against Julie Tramelli for an unpaid credit card balance of $26,956.54 after she defaulted on her account, which contained a binding arbitration clause added after she opened it in 1999. MBNA initiated arbitration proceedings following the default, Tramelli did not respond to notice of the arbitration, and an award was entered in MBNA's favor; she then opposed confirmation in district court by alleging the award was obtained through fraud and seeking sanctions. The district court treated her filings as a motion to vacate the award under Montana law, held an evidentiary hearing, and confirmed the award while denying the motion to vacate and the sanctions request. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the district court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence and that it had correctly applied settled Montana law on arbitration awards without abusing its discretion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Richard Hay sued the City of Miles City and its officials after a 2004 misdemeanor charge against him for unlawful transactions with children was dismissed without prejudice on the prosecutor's motion citing insufficient evidence. Hay had unsuccessfully sought in the city court to have the charge dismissed with prejudice or to proceed to trial, and he later filed a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in district court requesting a declaratory judgment that his rights were violated and injunctive relief ordering dismissal with prejudice. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding it lacked authority to grant the requested declaratory, injunctive, or other equitable relief. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Hay failed to show error because declaratory relief is not intended for factual findings on constitutional violations, no authority supported injunctive relief reopening the closed criminal case, and no basis existed for other equitable remedies.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure