State v. C. Valenzuela, 495 P.3d 1061

In 2011 the victim (C.J.V.), then in kindergarten, reported that his father Carlos Valenzuela touched his penis; the child later recanted and the investigation was closed.
Valenzuela was imprisoned on unrelated charges from 2012–2017; after release the victim later retracted his recantation and, in 2018, reported the original abuse again.
The State charged Valenzuela with sexual assault and incest based on the single 2011 touching incident; a 2019 jury convicted him of both offenses.
The district court imposed concurrent long-term prison sentences and a parole restriction; Valenzuela appealed.
On appeal Valenzuela argued his dual convictions violated double jeopardy because sexual assault is a lesser-included offense of incest, and he also claimed ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Valenzuela)	Held
Whether convictions for sexual assault and incest violate double jeopardy (U.S. & Mont. Constitutions; §46-11-410, MCA)	The statutes have different elements; Blockburger governs and allows separate convictions where each offense requires proof of a different element.	Sexual assault is a lesser-included offense of incest arising from the same act, so convicting on both violates double jeopardy.	Affirmed: sexual assault is not a lesser-included offense of incest under Blockburger; offenses contain different statutory elements (consent element vs. descendant relationship); plain-error review applied.
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to alleged double jeopardy	Counsel’s performance was not deficient because the double jeopardy claim lacked merit.	Counsel was ineffective for not raising the double jeopardy objection at trial.	Denied: no deficient performance or prejudice because the double jeopardy claim fails on the merits.

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (establishes the same-elements test for double jeopardy)
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (lesser-included analysis and double jeopardy principles)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (Fifth Amendment double jeopardy applies to the states)
Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410 (Blockburger focuses on statutory elements, not the evidence at trial)
State v. Hall, 224 Mont. 187, 728 P.2d 1339 (earlier Montana decision treating sexual assault as included in incest; addressed and overruled in part by the Court)
State v. Sor-Lokken, 247 Mont. 343, 805 P.2d 1367 (distinguished Hall; recognized difference in sub-variants of sexual offenses)
State v. McQuiston, 277 Mont. 397, 922 P.2d 519 (applies Blockburger to sexual-offense statutes; separate elements analysis)
State v. Ritchson, 193 Mont. 112, 603 P.2d 234 (statutory-elements approach rejects a fact-based test)
State v. Weatherell, 355 Mont. 230, 225 P.3d 1256 (Montana precedent discussing interaction of §46-11-410 provisions and element-based analysis)