Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Larry Bomar appealed a district court order that dismissed his petition for postconviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Defendant alleged that his trial counsel's failure to present certain expert evidence at trial rendered prejudiced him and therefore was a violation of his constitutional rights. Finding that counsel's decision not to present certain evidence was a strategic decision that did not amount to a violation of his constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny him postconviction relief.

Defendant Larry Bomar appealed a district court order that dismissed his petition for postconviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Defendant alleged that his trial counsel's failure to present certain expert evidence at trial rendered prejudiced him and therefore was a violation of his constitutional rights. Finding that counsel's decision not to present certain evidence was a strategic decision that did not amount to a violation of his constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny him postconviction relief.

Richard Ford suffered a work-related injury to his neck. He was diagnosed with a cervical strain, and Sentry Casualty Company accepted liability and paid benefits for this injury. During Ford’s treatment, he underwent an MRI which revealed a more serious cervical disc condition. Ford claimed that the workplace accident caused or aggravated this condition and that Sentry was liable for surgery to address it. Ford also claimed that Sentry was liable for ongoing temporary total disability benefits and that Sentry had unreasonably adjusted his claim. Sentry denied liability for Ford’s cervical disc condition based on the opinions of several doctors that the condition was not related to the industrial accident. Sentry also maintained that Ford reached maximum medical improvement, that he has been released to return to work without restrictions, and that it reasonably adjusted his claim. The dispute ultimately reached the Workers’ Compensation Court (WCC). Trial was held in early 2011. Ford and his wife testified, and numerous medical records were admitted into evidence. The WCC ruled in favor of Sentry as to each of the foregoing issues, and Ford appealed. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the WCC correctly determined that he failed to carry his burden of establishing causation with regard to his disc condition and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Defendant Christopher Robin Lewis appealed a district court judgment that found him ineligible for parole. In 2010, Defendant was charged with aggravated assault for the abuse of his minor sons. Nothing in Defendant's plea agreement addressed the district court's authority to restrict Defendant's eligibility for parole, and it contained no promise from the State regarding such a restriction. Defendant took exception to a subsequent presentencing investigation report (PSI) that recommended the court impose a twenty-year sentence with fifteen years suspended. The PSI recommended that Defendant not be considered eligible for release until he completed a chemical dependency treatment, anger management program and a mental health assessment. The court eventually sentenced Defendant to twenty years with ten years suspended without parole. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and Defendant's sentence.

Defendant William Parrish appealed a district court's decision to deny him postconviction relief. Defendant was convicted in 2008 of criminal endangerment, and the Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. In his petition for postconviction relief, Defendant argued that he was sentenced based on erroneous information about his prior criminal record, and that the erroneous information was submitted by the County Attorney because of anger toward him. The district court denied Defendant's petition because Defendant had already raised the issue of the accuracy of his prior criminal history at sentencing. Since that issue was known and could have been raised in the direct appeal, it could not be raised again for postconviction relief. For the first time on appeal, Defendant claimed his appellate attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue of the erroneous sentencing in the 2010 direct appeal. The Supreme Court declined to consider the issue raised for the first time on appeal; further the Court found that Defendant presented no evidence his sentence was based on the precise number of prior felony convictions he had, and no showing that that fact would have garnered him any material relief had it been raised on appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court.

In July 2009, Charles Albert’s Billings, Montana home caught fire. Despite response by the City of Billings Fire Department, the house burned to the ground. Albert sued the City for negligence of the Billings Fire Department, discrimination based upon age and disability, slander, and violation of his constitutional and statutory right to know and obtain documents held by the City. The District Court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on all issues. Albert appealed. Finding no error in the district court's consideration of Albert's case, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's decision.

Appellant Buddy Wade Pirello appealed a district court order that denied his motion to dismiss one felony charge of criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Appellant argued that the pending charges should be dismissed on the grounds that the hashish oil that led to his charges was legally possessed pursuant to the Montana Marijuana Act (MMA). On appeal, Appellant claimed that the MMA’s exception for "usable marijuana" necessarily includes the hashish for which he was charged because the term is defined as "any mixture or preparation of marijuana." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that hashish does not fall within a narrow exception to the MMA. Accordingly, the Court held that the District Court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the charge of criminal possession of dangerous drugs.

Defendant John Gordon Briscoe appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon. On appeal, Defendant contended the district court miscalculated his sentence based on a finding of lack of remorse, which he maintained was not affirmatively linked to information in the record. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel, however, the Court reversed his sentence and remanded the case back to the District Court to correct the sentence based in part on lack of remorse.

Plaintiff Arthur Rooney appealed a district court's order in favor of Defendant City of Cut Bank in his wrongful termination suit. Plaintiff appealed the court's decision that his termination did not violate Montana's Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA). The City cross-appealed the District Court's earlier interlocutory order denying the City's motion to dismiss the WDEA claim. The Supreme Court reversed an interlocutory ruling, and did not reach the issues raised by Plaintiff. The Court affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of the City on this alternative ground. The Supreme Court concluded Plaintiff was afforded "full and fair adjudication of his claims in the proceedings before the Police Commission." When the City moved for relief from the District Court's order ruling that the WDEA claim was distinct from the appeal of the Police Commission decision, it was correct that issue preclusion applied.

Defendant Scott Adams was charged in three separate proceedings in Ravalli County: (1) felony operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, fourth or subsequent offense, and a related misdemeanor; (2) forgery and two counts of misdemeanor theft; and (3) operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, fourth or subsequent offense, and several other offenses. Defendant posted bail following his arrest for the first driving under the influence charge, but bail was revoked following the filing of the second. The District Court then set a higher bail amount for his release. Unable to post bail a second time, Defendant remained incarcerated until a combined sentencing hearing in all three proceedings was conducted; Defendant ultimately served 66 days. Defendant appealed each of the three cases, and the Supreme Court consolidated them for this opinion. On appeal, Defendant argued multiple errors in the district court's decisions, ranging from miscalculation of his sentence and credit for time served. The State conceded that the District Court should not have ordered the revocation sentences to run consecutively to and requested that this provision be vacated. Upon the State's concession, the Supreme Court vacated the provision ordering the revocation sentences to run consecutively to one of the DUI sentences and remanded the case for correction. Otherwise, the Court affirmed the district court in all other respects.