State v. Adams
305 P.3d 808
Mont.2013Background
- Adams, in 2005 as a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent under DJ 04-88 and committed to DOC until age 18 with Pine Hills placement.
- Nov. 28, 2006, jurisdiction transferred to district court and adult probation services; Adams, then 18, placed on adult probation; he soon violated probation.
- The State filed felony theft charges in DC 06-509 and a petition to revoke DJ 04-88; the parties negotiated a plea: guilty to felony theft, three-year DOC sentence suspended, to run consecutive to the revocation disposition.
- Judge McLean sentenced Adams on March 26, 2007 to 3 years’ DOC suspended, running consecutively to the DJ 04-88 disposition; Adams did not object or appeal.
- April 10, 2007, Judge Harkin revoked DJ 04-88 to DOC until age 21 with no suspended time; Adams completed boot camp, then served at Montana State Prison, and was released to begin serving the 2007 Sentence after turning 21 in Nov. 2009.
- In January 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke Adams’ 2007 Sentence; Adams moved to dismiss arguing lack of authority to run the 2007 Sentence consecutively to the DJ 04-88 disposition; the district court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/waiver of challenge to 2007 sentence | Adams argues the 2007 consecutive designation was illegal and challengeable. | State contends Adams acquiesced and waived the challenge by pleading and not appealing. | Challenge barred; appeal not timely; petition preserved for revocation, not the 2007 sentence |
| Authority to run 2007 sentence consecutively to DJ 04-88 disposition | Adams contends § 46-18-401(4) prohibits consecutive designations with a juvenile disposition. | State argues § 46-18-401 operates only generally; revocation statutes control, allowing consecutive designation. | Not properly challengeable in revocation; Seals controls; district court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Muhammad, 309 Mont. 1 (2002 MT 47) (timeliness; appeal window; limits review to revocation sentence)
- State v. White, 348 Mont. 196 (2008 MT 464) (untimely challenge to conditions or original sentence)
- State v. Seals, 336 Mont. 416 (2007 MT 71) (revocation corrections governed by revocation statutes; constraints on resentence)
- State v. Micklon, 314 Mont. 291 (2003 MT 45) (acquiescence or participation can bar challenges)
- In re M.W., 364 Mont. 211 (2012 MT 4) (appeals from original orders not timely; focus on revocation challenge)