State v. Coleman, 431 P.3d 26

In Oct. 2014 Coleman pleaded guilty to Sexual Intercourse Without Consent and was sentenced to 30 years with 10 years suspended.
The District Court imposed probation conditions for any community supervision period, including Condition 45: no cell phone or other device with photo, video, or Internet capabilities.
Coleman did not object to Condition 45 at or before sentencing. He later appealed seeking to strike the condition as unconstitutional.
Coleman argued Condition 45 is an overly broad restriction on First Amendment speech, relying on Packingham v. North Carolina.
The State courts distinguish between facial and as-applied constitutional challenges and generally require contemporaneous objections to sentencing conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Coleman may raise a challenge to Condition 45 for the first time on appeal	Condition 45 is unconstitutional (overbroad First Amendment restriction); relies on Packingham	Coleman failed to object below, so his challenge should be waived	Waived: as-applied constitutional challenges to sentencing conditions not raised below cannot be considered on first appeal
Whether the challenge is facial or as-applied	Condition 45 is facially unconstitutional like the statute invalidated in Packingham	The challenge is to the sentence/condition (as-applied), not to a statute	Court found the challenge was as-applied, not facial, so it is not reviewable on first appeal
Whether plain-error review should be applied to review Condition 45 despite waiver	Plain error review could cure failure to object if fundamental rights affected	Exercising plain error would undermine the rule against first-time as-applied challenges on appeal	Declined to apply plain-error review; no review granted

State v. Cleveland, 377 Mont. 97, 338 P.3d 606 (Mont. 2014) (standard for reviewing criminal sentence legality)
State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 602 P.2d 997 (Mont. 1979) (permits raising illegal sentences for first time on appeal)
State v. Zimmerman, 355 Mont. 286, 228 P.3d 1109 (Mont. 2010) (probation conditions must be reasonable, not overly broad)
State v. Muhammad, 309 Mont. 1, 43 P.3d 318 (Mont. 2002) (same principle on probation conditions)
State v. Ashby, 342 Mont. 187, 179 P.3d 1164 (Mont. 2008) (failure to object at sentencing may waive appellate review)
State v. Kotwicki, 335 Mont. 344, 151 P.3d 892 (Mont. 2007) (preservation rule for sentencing objections)
State v. Heddings, 347 Mont. 169, 198 P.3d 242 (Mont. 2008) (defines "illegal" vs "objectionable" sentences)
State v. Strong, 349 Mont. 417, 203 P.3d 848 (Mont. 2009) (distinguishes facial and as-applied challenges on appeal)
State v. Parkhill, 391 Mont. 114, 414 P.3d 1244 (Mont. 2018) (as-applied challenges not reviewable first on appeal)
State v. Ellis, 339 Mont. 14, 167 P.3d 896 (Mont. 2007) (facial constitutional challenge to sentencing statute can be raised on appeal)
State v. Mainwaring, 335 Mont. 322, 151 P.3d 53 (Mont. 2007) (declined first-time as-applied sentencing challenge on appeal)
Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. ----, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) (struck statute barring sex offenders from certain social-media access as overly broad under the First Amendment)