City of Missoula v. F. Sadiku, 498 P.3d 765

In Aug 2017 Sadiku was charged with misdemeanor sexual assault; he pleaded nolo contendere to a deferred six-month jail sentence conditioned on compliance with an order of protection.
The order barred travel within 1,500 feet of the victim’s home or workplace but expressly permitted travel on certain roads and to specified businesses provided the victim was not present.
In Apr 2018 Sadiku drove on Bancroft Street (within 1,500 feet of the victim’s workplace) while taking his son to school; prosecutors filed a petition to revoke his deferred sentence and a separate charge for violating the protection order.
A jury acquitted Sadiku of the separate order-violation charge, but the Municipal Court (relying on trial testimony and exhibits) found by a preponderance of the evidence that he had violated the deferred-sentence condition, revoked the deferment, and imposed a six-month sentence with six months suspended.
The Fourth Judicial District Court affirmed. On appeal to the Montana Supreme Court Sadiku raised: (1) whether the court failed to make required § 46-18-203 findings before revocation for a compliance violation; and (2) whether revocation and imposition of a suspended six-month sentence was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Municipal Court was required to apply the MIIG/§ 46-18-203 compliance-violation procedures before revoking a misdemeanor deferred sentence	City: MIIG requirements (exhaustion and DOC procedures) do not apply to misdemeanor revocations; court lawfully revoked without MIIG exhaustion	Sadiku: Violating the order was a "compliance violation" requiring MIIG exhaustion; Pope was wrongly decided or distinguishable and he lacked notice	Court: Affirmed Pope; MIIG applies to felony (DOC) supervision only; misdemeanor revocations may be revoked under remaining § 46-18-203 provisions without MIIG exhaustion
Whether revocation and imposition of a six-month suspended sentence was an abuse of discretion	City: Court applied preponderance standard, relied on trial record and evidence; sentence is within statutory range	Sadiku: Violation was a one-time, inadvertent act (wrong turn) and suspension is unduly harsh	Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence supported finding and sentence was lawful and not arbitrary

City of Missoula v. Pope, 402 Mont. 416, 478 P.3d 815 (holds MIIG requirements apply to felony supervision administered by DOC and not to misdemeanor revocations)
State v. Oropeza, 398 Mont. 379, 456 P.3d 1023 (discusses 2017 MIIG amendments and sentencing framework)
State v. Brooks, 358 Mont. 51, 243 P.3d 405 (standard for reviewing statutory interpretation)
State v. Beams, 400 Mont. 278, 465 P.3d 1178 (preponderance standard and abuse-of-discretion review for revocation)
State v. Cook, 364 Mont. 161, 272 P.3d 50 (revocation executes original sentence as if suspension never granted)
State v. Reopelle, 388 Mont. 271, 399 P.3d 903 (defines abuse of discretion standard)