State v. Andress
2013 MT 12
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Andress appealed a conviction for felony violation of a permanent order of protection and tampering with a witness.
- The POP prohibited contact within 1500 feet of ex-girlfriend Nichols; Andress was on felony probation for prior POP violations.
- In Oct 2010 Andress entered a Missoula bar, saw Nichols, and violated the POP, leading to new charges.
- While jailed, Andress wrote notes; one note was obtained by cellmate Randleas who delivered it to Morgan Styles per Andress's wish.
- Randleas testified Andress asked for Styles to testify untruthfully; Styles denied being present at the Rhino Bar that night.
- Jury convicted on both counts; sentence pronounced orally but the written judgment later added 26 terms and fines not discussed at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel gave ineffective assistance | Andress argues misdefined mens rea; proposed labels rejected. | Andress argues definitions should align with offense-specific mental-state. | No reversible error; instructions were full and fair. |
| Whether nonconforming written judgment taints conviction | Andress claims written judgment added conditions not orally pronounced. | Written judgments can be reviewed; some conditions are proper stock conditions. | Remand to strike non-stock conditions; core sentence valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lambert, 280 Mont. 231, 929 P.2d 846 (1996) (define mental state in context of offense)
- State v. Patton, 280 Mont. 278, 930 P.2d 635 (1996) (requirement to tailor instructions to offense)
- State v. Hovey, 2011 MT 3, 359 Mont. 100, 248 P.3d 303 (2011) (jury instructions must fairly instruct law)
- State v. Lane, 1998 MT 76, 288 Mont. 286, 957 P.2d 9 (1998) (oral sentence is legally effective; written cannot broaden punishment)
- State v. Johnson, 2000 MT 290, 302 Mont. 265, 14 P.3d 480 (2000) (clarifies Lane and review of nonconforming judgments)
- State v. Kroll, 2004 MT 203, 322 Mont. 294, 95 P.3d 717 (2004) (46-18-116(2) conforming written judgment; stock vs non-stock conditions)
- State v. Lucero, 2004 MT 248, 323 Mont. 42, 97 P.3d 1106 (2004) (nonconforming conditions; relation to liberty)