State v. Christopher Lewis, 282 P.3d 679

Lewis was convicted of aggravated assault for abusing his son; he pleaded no contest under a plea agreement that did not address parole eligibility.
The plea agreement allowed the State to recommend a sentence within a specified range and stated parties could argue for other lawful terms subject to the court’s final decision.
The State did not seek a parole restriction in the plea; the district court later imposed a no-parole provision.
The district court sentenced Lewis to 20 years MSP with 10 years suspended and ordered no parole, relying on the severity of the offense.
The PSI recommended 20-year commitment with 15 years suspended and conditions including in-patient treatment and cognitive/anger management.
Lewis challenged whether the district court could impose a parole restriction under the plea and whether the State breached the plea; the court addressed why the parole restriction was permissible and the lack of explicit reasoning in the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the parole restriction violated the plea agreement	Lewis argues the State’s pre-sentencing representations effectively altered the plea	State contends the plea was silent on parole ineligibility and did not modify the agreement	Parole restriction did not violate the plea; the contract language allowed such conditions within the agreed disposition
Whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement	Lewis asserts the prosecutor’s opposition to Lewis’ motion breached the plea	State argues no breach occurred and responses were within permissible conduct under the plea	No breach; prosecutor’s responses did not undermine the plea agreement as a breach
Whether the district court erred by failing to state reasons for the parole restriction	Lewis contends §46-18-202(2) requires written reasons for the restriction	State contends the court could impose a restriction and it was within statutory authority	Lenihan rule not applied; district court could have imposed a restriction; not illegal; remanded for modified written judgment with reasons

State v. McDowell, 2011 MT 75 (MT 2011) (contract-law analysis of plea agreements; breach review)
State v. Bullplume, 2011 MT 40 (MT 2011) (breach and interpretation of plea terms)
State v. Shepard, 2010 MT 20 (MT 2010) (parole-eligibility issue and contract modification; appellate review limits)
State v. Kotwicki, 2007 MT 17 (MT 2007) (Lenihan rule and review of sentencing objected-to errors)
State v. Osterloth, 2000 MT 129 (MT 2000) (requirement to state reasons for sentence in judgment; remand for amended judgment)