State v. Bullplume, 305 P.3d 753

Bullplume was convicted in Washington in 1993 for first-degree rape and must register as a sexual offender; Washington sentence has been discharged.
In 2011 he was arrested in Great Falls on DUI-related charges, admitted leaving Washington two months earlier, and disclosed two weeks of residence in Great Falls without registering as a sexual offender.
A felony failure-to-register charge was filed in 2011; the State and Bullplume entered a binding plea agreement with a four-year commitment suspended.
A PSI and psychosexual evaluation were prepared; Bullplume had extensive prior criminal history including multiple DUIs and prior sexual-offender registrations in Washington.
At sentencing in 2012 the court imposed a four-year suspended sentence and 41 probation conditions (26–40 involving sexual-offender restrictions) and Bullplume objected to 26–40; he did not object to other conditions.
Bullplume appeals the asserted lack of nexus for 26–40 and the court’s authority to require him to pay for evaluations and treatment; the Court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bullplume waived appellate review on costs of evaluations and treatment.	Bullplume failed to object; Lenihan exception may apply.	No proper objection at sentencing; record lacks discussion of payment option.	Waived to the extent of appellate review; court declines further review on costs.
Whether the district court abused discretion imposing conditions 26–40 (sexual-offender provisions).	Conditions have nexus to rehabilitation and public safety given history and psychosexual evaluation.	Nexus too stale or isolated; insufficient to justify broad sexual-offender restrictions.	Conditions 26–40 affirmatively supported by nexus to rehabilitation and protection of society.

State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 602 P.2d 997 (Mont. 1979) (establishes exception to review for illegal sentences when not objected at trial)
State v. Kotwicki, 335 Mont. 344, 151 P.3d 892 (Mont. 2007) (Lenihan exception limited; but review if sentence could still be legal)
State v. Nelson, 274 Mont. 11, 906 P.2d 663 (Mont. 1995) (illustrates illegality/may affect Lenihan analysis in absence of objection)
State v. Swoboda, 276 Mont. 479, 918 P.2d 296 (Mont. 1996) (discusses statutory sentencing requirements and objections)
State v. Melton, 364 Mont. 482, 276 P.3d 900 (Mont. 2012) (limits on restrictions; requires nexus to rehabilitation; deference to discretion)
State v. Zimmerman, 355 Mont. 286, 228 P.3d 1109 (Mont. 2010) (reiterates broad discretionary authority and nexus standard)