City of Bozeman v. Cantu, 2013 MT 40

Cantu was convicted of two misdemeanor sexual assaults under § 45-5-502, MCA, with deferred sentences of two years on each offense running consecutively.
The Municipal Court imposed probation conditions including a psychosexual evaluation and at least 6 months of therapy, to be funded at Cantu’s expense.
Cantu appealed the psychosexual evaluation condition, and the District Court upheld it.
The Montana Supreme Court reviews criminal sentences for legality, and here applies the standard for challenging a sentencing condition.
The issue is whether the court had statutory authority to order the psychosexual evaluation in a misdemeanor deferred-sentence context and whether the condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation and protection of society.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Municipal Court exceeded statutory authority by ordering a psychosexual evaluation as a probation condition.	Cantu argues § 46-18-111(1)(b) limits psychosexual evaluations to certain felonies.	State argues authority under §§ 46-18-201(4) and 46-18-202(1) to impose reasonable conditions.	Yes, court had authority to order the evaluation under those statutes.
Whether imposing a psychosexual evaluation as a probation condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation or protection.	Cantu contends the condition is overly broad or punitive given the misdemeanors.	Evaluation is a reasonable first step to tailor treatment and protect society.	The condition was reasonable and within the court’s discretion.

State v. Leyva, 365 Mont. 204, 280 P.3d 252 (2012 MT 124) (broad discretion to impose conditions not limited by sex-offense statutes)
State v. Ashby, 342 Mont. 187, 179 P.3d 1164 (2008 MT 83) (nexus required between condition and rehabilitation; offender-related conditions allowed)
State v. Hafner, 358 Mont. 137, 243 P.3d 435 (2010 MT 233) (sentencing review for legality and reasonableness of conditions)
State v. Zimmerman, 355 Mont. 286, 228 P.3d 1109 (2010 MT 44) (reasonable relationship to rehabilitation or protection required)
State v. Herd, 320 Mont. 490, 87 P.3d 1017 (2004 MT 85) (broad discretion in fashioning criminal sentences with limits)
State v. Holt, 359 Mont. 308, 249 P.3d 470 (2011 MT 42) (sex-offender registration issues require statutory authority)
In re T.M.L., 363 Mont. 304, 268 P.3d 1255 (2012 MT 9) (sex-offender designation rules; distinction between offense types and registration)