State v. A. LeDeau Jr., 2017 MT 265N

Adam LeDeau Jr. pleaded guilty to felony sexual assault in 2004; original sentence 15 years with all but 5 years suspended; he served 5 years, was released on probation in 2007, then had that suspended sentence revoked in 2008 and was resentenced to 10 years with 5 suspended.
LeDeau served another 5-year term and was released to probation in March 2013.
In March 2016 a formal petition alleged multiple probation violations; LeDeau initially denied violations at an April 2016 hearing but later admitted violations at a May 3, 2016 formal revocation hearing with counsel present.
At the May 3 hearing the court confirmed LeDeau’s understanding of rights, asked about competency, accepted admissions, and heard probation officer testimony establishing a factual basis.
The district court revoked LeDeau’s suspended sentence and sentenced him to 5 years in the Department of Corrections, awarded 55 days credit for pre-disposition incarceration, and denied credit for time served on probation; LeDeau appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court improperly considered prior revocations when deciding current revocation	State: Court may consider prior revocations; relevant background	LeDeau: Court erred by relying on prior revocations (risk of double punishment)	Court: Accepting consideration of prior revocations is permissible; revocation based on current violations was lawful
Whether district court abused discretion by denying credit for time served on probation	State: Court has discretion to allow or reject probationary time as credit	LeDeau: He should receive credit for time served on probation	Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered elapsed time and reasonably denied credit due to unsatisfactory probation conduct
Whether use of LeDeau’s failure to meet financial obligations was improper in denying credit	State: (implicit) financial failures relevant to probation performance	LeDeau: Argued error under § 46-18-203(6)(b), MCA (but gave no legal development)	Court: Declined to consider insufficiently developed argument on appeal
Whether LeDeau’s waiver of a formal revocation hearing was invalid	State: Waiver was informed and voluntary	LeDeau: Court failed to adequately review rights before accepting waiver	Court: Waiver was informed, intelligent, voluntary; court did not abuse discretion

State v. Goff, 359 Mont. 107, 247 P.3d 715 (2011) (standard of review for revocation: preponderance and abuse-of-discretion; judge must be reasonably satisfied probationer breached terms)
State v. Martinez, 344 Mont. 394, 188 P.3d 1034 (2008) (trial court may acknowledge prior violations so long as at least one unpunished violation supports revocation)
State v. Johnston, 346 Mont. 93, 193 P.3d 925 (2008) (same principle: prior revocations may be considered but cannot constitute double punishment)
Gundrum v. Mahoney, 307 Mont. 96, 36 P.3d 890 (2001) (trial court has discretion to allow or reject probationary time as credit against revoked sentence)
State v. Finley, 317 Mont. 268, 77 P.3d 193 (2003) (waiver of fundamental rights must be informed, intelligent, and voluntary)
McCulley v. Am. Land Title Co., 369 Mont. 433, 300 P.3d 679 (2013) (appellate courts are not required to develop undeveloped arguments for parties)