State v. B. Glass, 2017 MT 128

In 2014 Bruce Glass received multiple shipments of methamphetamine from California, distributed most for profit, and kept smaller amounts for personal use. Law enforcement stopped Glass in Montana and seized drug residue in a pipe and other items associated with distribution.
Federal indictment charged Glass with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 140 months imprisonment plus supervised release.
Montana charged Glass with, among other counts, felony possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine). The State conceded the distribution charge was barred by double jeopardy but pursued the possession charge.
Glass moved to dismiss the state possession charges as barred by Montana’s double jeopardy statute because the possession arose from the same transaction as his federal conspiracy conviction.
The District Court denied the motion; Glass entered an Alford plea to felony possession, reserved the right to appeal the double jeopardy ruling, and was sentenced (state sentence to run concurrent with federal term).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Montana double jeopardy bars state possession prosecution after federal conspiracy conviction	State: possession charge is based on separate conduct (personal use) and a different criminal objective than federal conspiracy to distribute; not the same transaction	Glass: possession was necessary and incidental to his conspiracy to distribute; personal use is not a separate criminal objective, so prosecution is barred	Court: Held not barred — possession for personal use is a distinct criminal objective and a separate offense arising from different conduct

State v. Cech, 338 Mont. 330, 167 P.3d 389 (2007) (articulates three-part test for double jeopardy under § 46-11-504(1), MCA)
State v. Tadewaldt, 277 Mont. 261, 922 P.2d 463 (1996) (same-transaction analysis under Montana law)
State v. Gazda, 318 Mont. 516, 82 P.3d 20 (2003) (interpretation of ‘same transaction’ and criminal objective inquiry)
State v. James, 357 Mont. 193, 237 P.3d 672 (2010) (focus on underlying conduct and purpose rather than statutory elements when assessing same-transaction overlap)
State v. Wood, 345 Mont. 487, 191 P.3d 463 (2008) (possession for personal use can be a distinct prosecutable offense from possession for distribution)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (explains Alford plea doctrine cited for plea posture)