State v. Bryan Lemay
2011 MT 323
| Mont. | 2011Background
- LeMay moved to Fairview, Montana in June 2009 and claimed he faced extensive, racially charged enforcement as a purported target of a motorcycle gang; he faced multiple tickets for offenses in three district court cases (DC 09-31, DC 09-39, DC 09-48).
- The appeal concerns July 11, July 15, and August 26, 2009 incidents resulting in DUI and related charges, and a subsequent combined sentence for all three cases.
- LeMay argued outrageous government conduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, illegitimate withdrawal of nolo pleas, lack of particularized suspicion for an investigative stop, and lack of state criminal jurisdiction.
- The district court denied the motions on these grounds; LeMay pleaded nolo contendere but later sought to withdraw the pleas, which the court denied.
- LeMay was ultimately sentenced to a mix of DOC confinement, fines, and suspended terms, with the sentences running concurrently; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the judgments and rejected each challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outrageous government conduct denied | LeMay alleges racially biased harassment and profiling by law enforcement. | Prosecution based on alleged profiling; government conduct outrageous. | No outrageous conduct; motions denied affirmed. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to investigate profiling and misconduct; ineffective assistance. | Counsel acted within reasonable standards given circumstances. | No ineffective assistance; claims fail under Strickland standard. |
| Withdrawal of nolo pleas | Plea not voluntary due to brain injury and lack of understanding. | Plea explanation and record show awareness of consequences; no good cause to withdraw. | Plea withdrawal denied; pleas deemed voluntary. |
| Suppression for lack of particularized suspicion | Stop lacked particularized suspicion as no illegal U-turn occurred. | Officer had reasonable suspicion based on observed conduct and road signs. | Stop justified; suppression denied. |
| State criminal jurisdiction over Indian defendant | Richland County Indian Country confines MT jurisdiction; federal law applies. | Crimes occurred in or near Indian Country; jurisdiction disputed. | No lack of state jurisdiction; crimes not within Indian Country; jurisdiction proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1973) (outrageous-government-conduct defense limited to extreme cases)
- United States v. Ramirez, 710 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1983) (outrageous-conduct threshold not met here)
- State v. Ditton, 333 Mont. 483 (MT 2006) (limits outrageous conduct to extreme cases)
- State v. Williams-Rusch, 928 P.2d 169 (MT 1996) (limitations on outrageous conduct defense)
- City of Billings v. Bruce, 290 Mont. 148 (MT 1998) (context for procedural safeguards in outrageous conduct analysis)
- United States v. Ramirez, 710 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1983) (repeated for emphasis on criteria of outrageous conduct)
- Roundstone, 2011 MT 227 (MT 2011) (standard de novo review of denial motions)
- Knowles, 2010 MT 186 (MT 2010) (standard for reviewing defense counsel performance)
- Whitlow v. State, 2008 MT 140 (MT 2008) (Strickland two-prong test standard applied in MT)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes deficiency and prejudice prongs for ineffective assistance)
- State v. McFarlane, 2008 MT 18 (MT 2008) (good-cause standard for withdrawing guilty plea)
- State v. Warclub, 2005 MT 149 (MT 2005) (plea-withdrawal considerations and voluntariness)
- In re Diserly, 140 Mont. 219 (MT 1962) (no Indian-country jurisdiction bar where locus of crime is outside Indian Country)