State v. Chaussee, 2011 MT 203

Chaussee challenges two prior DUI convictions (1997 Missoula Municipal Court; 1999 Darby City Court) as constitutionally infirm due to improper waiver of counsel; the 2008 Missoula conviction is not challenged.
The State charged Chaussee with DUI as a felony based on three prior DUIs; the District Court denied the motion to dismiss the priors.
Chaussee attached 1997 record suggesting ambiguous waiver and 1999 forms showing a lack of explicit waiver indicators; the court applied the Okland and Maine framework to assess validity.
Under the Maine framework, the defendant must overcome a presumption of regularity with affirmative evidence; circumstantial or direct evidence can be used, but must demonstrate a constitutional violation.
The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the District Court, holding Chaussee failed to produce affirmative evidence; the court did not require an evidentiary hearing and concluded the priors could be used for enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Burden to show infirm prior convictions for enhancement	Chaussee must overcome presumption of regularity with affirmative evidence	Chaussee's records show potential waiver irregularities and insufficiency of evidence	Chaussee failed to prove infirmity; presumption stands
What evidence suffices as affirmative to rebut presumptive regularity	Affirmative evidence can be direct or circumstantial; must show actual violation	Record ambiguities cannot prove a violation	Affirmative evidence requires more than ambiguity; circumstantial evidence allowed but must show actual violation
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required	Hearing should be granted to develop evidence of waiver issues	No prima facie showing; hearing not required	Hearing not required; decision within court’s discretion; no prima facie showing of invalidity
Standard of proof and burden allocation in Maine framework	State bears burden after defendant overcomes presumption	Burden shifts to defendant to prove invalidity by preponderance	Defendant must prove invalidity by preponderance; State may rebut with evidence

State v. Howard, 312 Mont. 359 (2002) (right to counsel; voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver required; appointive counsel principles)
State v. Okland, 283 Mont. 10 (1997) (presumption of regularity; burden-shifting framework for collateral challenges)
State v. Maine, 360 Mont. 182 (2011) (reaffirmed Maine framework; defendant bears ultimate burden; circumstantial evidence allowed)
State v. Burns, 361 Mont. 191 (2011) (de novo review; collateral challenges to prior convictions; finality goals considered)
State v. Anderson, 306 Mont. 243 (2001) (absence of record evidence does not prove irregularity; burden remains on defendant)
State v. LaPier, 289 Mont. 392 (1998) (presumption of regularity applies despite missing record)