In re M.W.
272 P.3d 112
Mont.2012Background
- Youth Court adjudicated M.W. delinquent for a 2006 sexual-offense; no registration at that time.
- Youth Court in 2009 ordered Level I sexual-offender registration as a condition of sentence, which MW did not appeal.
- MW was transferred to District Court for supervision as an adult; district order required ongoing registration and sexual-offender treatment.
- MW completed treatment and probation relief was granted in part in March 2010, but relief from registration in July 2010 was denied.
- MW appealed the denial of relief from registration, challenging retroactive application of SVORA and the duration of registration; the court held the district court lacked authority to relieve now and MW may seek relief after the statutorily mandated period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relief from registration: is district court authority to grant relief available now? | MW argues retroactive SVORA protections apply and relief should be granted upon release. | State argues registration is a separate statutory duty and not reduced by release from supervision; relief requires waiting period. | District court has no authority to relieve now; relief may be sought after the applicable 10-year period. |
| Waiver/forfeiture of challenge to original registration imposition | MW did not timely appeal the 2009 registration order. | Rule as in Muhammad bars raising that challenge now. | MW forfeited challenge to the original imposition of registration. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hicks, 331 Mont. 471 (2006 MT 71) (courts cannot override statutory registration duties)
- State v. White Bear, 325 Mont. 337 (2005 MT 7) (registration is a statutory duty, not merely a sentencing term)
- State v. Mount, 317 Mont. 481 (2003 MT 275) (statutory framework governs registration duration)
- In re C.D.H., 349 Mont. 1 (2009 MT 8) (registration requirements are separate from sentencing; relief requires statutory authority)
- State v. Muhammad, 309 Mont. 1 (2002 MT 47) (timeliness rules apply to appeals of conditions; forfeiture principle)
- State v. Grana, 351 Mont. 499 (2009 MT 250) (probation conditions generally terminate with supervision, but registration is statutory)
- State v. Mount, 78 P.3d 829 (2003 MT 275) (duration and discretion under registration statutes)
- United States v. Juvenile Male, 360 Mont. 317 (2011 MT 104) (SVORA amendments retroactivity considerations)