State v. C. Kokot, 2017 MT 198N

In Aug. 2014 Kokot, a high-school basketball coach, was charged with sexual intercourse without consent involving two minor students (FS1 and FS2); he pleaded guilty May 1, 2015 to one count of sexual assault of FS2.
At his first court appearance the district court ordered Kokot not to contact victims or witnesses; Kokot nonetheless contacted FS2 over 50 times and contacted a witness.
A psychosexual evaluation and Kokot’s own statements detailed sexual activity and deceptive conduct involving FS1 and FS2; Kokot later characterized some statements as attempts to cover up conduct with FS2.
At sentencing the district court cited Kokot’s sexual relationship with FS1, abuse of positional authority and trust as a coach, and Kokot’s post-arrest contacts in imposing a 25-year prison term with 10 years suspended.
The sentence included conditions forbidding alcohol use/possession, requiring alcohol testing, and barring employment at establishments where alcohol is the chief item of sale. Kokot appealed, arguing sentencing relied on materially false information and that the alcohol-employment condition lacked nexus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Kokot)	Held
Whether sentence was premised on materially false information	District Court accurately interpreted record showing sexual activity with FS1 and other aggravating conduct	Court relied on Kokot’s alleged admission about FS1 which Kokot says was mischaracterized; seeks new sentencing hearing	Affirmed — Kokot failed to show sentence was based on materially inaccurate or prejudicial information
Whether alcohol-use and testing conditions were permissible	These conditions are standard DOC conditions and appropriate here	Condition lacks nexus to offense/offender (Ashby)	Affirmed — use/possession and testing conditions are allowed as standard DOC conditions
Whether condition barring employment at alcohol-focused establishments was permissible	State conceded this condition should be struck	Condition lacks statutory/DO C rule basis and no nexus shown	Reversed — employment restriction vacated and sentencing remanded to strike it
Standard of review for sentencing and probation conditions	N/A (framework)	N/A	Constitutional due-process review de novo; probation conditions reviewed for abuse of discretion

State v. Simmons, 362 Mont. 306, 264 P.3d 706 (Mont. 2011) (standard for de novo review of constitutional sentencing issues)
State v. Leyva, 365 Mont. 204, 280 P.3d 252 (Mont. 2012) (probation-condition review is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Hernandez, 353 Mont. 111, 220 P.3d 25 (Mont. 2009) (standard conditions adopted by DOC apply unless court finds them inappropriate)
Bauer v. State, 295 Mont. 306, 983 P.2d 955 (Mont. 1999) (defendant must show sentence rested on materially inaccurate or prejudicial information)
State v. Sherman, 386 Mont. 363, 390 P.3d 158 (Mont. 2017) (due-process protection against sentencing predicated on misinformation)
State v. Ashby, 342 Mont. 187, 179 P.3d 1164 (Mont. 2008) (sentencing condition must have nexus to offense or offender when not covered by DOC standard rules)