State v. D. Schultz, 571 P.3d 685

David Ray Schultz was arrested after arranging to meet what he believed to be a 12-year-old girl for sexual activity; in reality, he communicated with an undercover law enforcement officer during a sting operation.
Schultz was charged and pled guilty to Attempted Sexual Abuse of Children under Montana law, specifically for traveling with intent to meet a minor for sex.
The prosecution sought an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence based on the age of the fictitious victim (under 12), leading to a 25-year parole restriction under § 45-5-625(4)(a), MCA.
Schultz filed a motion to strike the enhancement, arguing it should only apply where there is an actual victim under the age of 12.
The district court imposed the enhanced sentence; Schultz appealed the denial of his motion to strike.
The key question on appeal was whether the statutory mandatory minimum applies when the putative victim is fictitious (an adult officer posing as a child).

Issue	Schultz's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Applicability of age-based sentencing enhancement when victim is fictitious	Mandatory minimum should not apply; statute contemplates an actual victim (child under 12); no real child harmed	Mandatory minimum applies even with fictitious victims, as the statute refers to belief about victim’s age	The statute requires an actual victim for enhanced penalty; mandatory minimum does not apply in sting operations with fictitious victims
Statutory Interpretation	Statutory language distinguishes "the victim" (actual person) from “a child” (can be fictional); enhancements apply only to real victims	The broad statute covers both real and believed-to-be child victims; structure applies enhancements generally	Plain meaning and structure indicate enhancements only for actual child victims, not fictional ones in sting operations
Legislative Intent	Enhancement’s purpose is to penalize harm to real children; not meant for stings	Intent was to deter and punish all offenders, including those caught in stings, for attempting to abuse minors	Clear legislative intent to limit severe sentences to offenses with actual minor victims
Rule of Lenity/Statutory Ambiguity	Any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of defendant	Ambiguity is minimal; legislative history shows intent to punish broadly	Court resolves ambiguity by reading statute to require an actual child victim for sentencing enhancement

State v. Hinshaw, 414 P.3d 271 (Mont. 2018) (standard for appellate review of sentence legality)
Reichert v. State, 278 P.3d 455 (Mont. 2012) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
State ex rel. Kurth v. Grinde, 32 P.2d 15 (Mont. 1934) (cannot rewrite statutes via judicial interpretation)
City of Missoula v. Fox, 450 P.3d 898 (Mont. 2019) (holistic statutory construction)
State v. Levine, 553 P.3d 416 (Mont. 2024) (article usage in statutory language signals legislative intent)
State v. Triplett, 195 P.3d 819 (Mont. 2008) (statutory interpretation must not isolate terms from context)