State v. Benjamin
2017 MT 219N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Benjamin pleaded guilty to felony embezzlement for stealing over $10,000 in grain from employer David Broberg and converting proceeds to vehicles and cash.
- District Court ordered $476,179.66 restitution to Broberg and directed transfer of four assets to Broberg: a patronage account, $1,248.11 from Benjamin’s checking account, a debt owed by Kevin Racine, and a 1996 Chevrolet pickup.
- The judgment specified credit toward restitution for the $1,248.11, the Racine debt, and one-half the pickup’s value.
- Benjamin, through counsel, agreed to the asset transfers in exchange for credit toward restitution at the sentencing hearing and reiterated that the transfers would “stay the same” at a subsequent continuance addressing persistent felony offender status.
- On appeal Benjamin contended the District Court lacked authority to order the asset transfers and also argued conditions were improperly imposed on a suspended sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Benjamin waived right to appeal court-ordered transfers of assets to victim | State: Benjamin acquiesced at sentencing and thus waived appellate review | Benjamin: District Court lacked authority to order the transfers and may seek appellate review | Court: Benjamin waived the issue by agreeing to transfers and reaffirming them at the continuance; Lenihan exception inapplicable |
| Whether challenged conditions were improperly imposed on a suspended sentence | State: No suspended term existed, so conditions are moot | Benjamin: Court exceeded authority by imposing conditions on a suspended sentence | Court: No suspension was imposed; conditions therefore have no effect and any error is harmless under §46-20-701(2), MCA |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walker, 338 Mont. 529, 167 P.3d 879 (Mont. 2007) (appellate review barred where defendant failed to object and actively acquiesced in sentence condition)
- State v. Kotwicki, 335 Mont. 344, 151 P.3d 892 (Mont. 2007) (court generally refuses to review unpreserved sentencing objections)
- State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 602 P.2d 997 (Mont. 1979) (exception allowing appellate review of illegal sentences despite lack of objection)
- State v. Micklon, 314 Mont. 291, 65 P.3d 559 (Mont. 2003) (Lenihan exception does not apply where defendant actively participated in imposing sentence condition)