State v. DiFulvio
2022 MT 209N
Mont.2022Background
- DiFulvio pled guilty to criminal endangerment for driving the wrong way on I-90 while intoxicated; entered a plea agreement and received a three-year deferred sentence on August 5, 2020.
- On March 8, 2022, after serving one-half of the deferred sentence, DiFulvio moved to terminate the remainder under § 46-18-208, MCA, asserting she met the statutory requirements (served half the term, complied with supervision, paid fines and fees).
- DiFulvio’s probation officer supported early termination; the State filed an objection that did not cite or analyze § 46-18-208 and merely argued she should serve the full three years.
- The District Court denied DiFulvio’s motion, adopting the State’s response as its reasons for denial.
- The Montana Supreme Court reviewed for abuse of discretion, noted § 46-18-208(6)(a)-(c) requires consideration of three elements (best interests of defendant and society; risk to victim; payment of financial obligations), and concluded it was unclear whether the District Court considered those elements.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | DiFulvio's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DiFulvio is entitled to termination of the remainder of her deferred sentence under § 46-18-208 | The State argued DiFulvio should serve the full 3-year term and requested denial (did not address statutory factors) | DiFulvio argued she satisfied § 46-18-208(a) (served half, complied, paid fines/fees) and sought early termination | Court found no clear record that the statutory factors were considered; remanded for proper consideration |
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion by summarily adopting the State’s non-substantive response as the basis for denial | Implicit: court may rely on parties’ positions | DiFulvio argued denial lacked stated legal basis and consideration of statutory criteria | Court held reviewable for abuse of discretion; because the basis was unclear, reversal and remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Passmore, 334 P.3d 378 (Mont. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for post-trial motions)
- Wilkes v. State, 355 P.3d 755 (Mont. 2015) (remand appropriate when district court’s legal conclusions and factual basis are unclear)
- Beach v. State, 220 P.3d 667 (Mont. 2009) (same)