State v. E. Farr III
2017 MT 200N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Farr arrested in Great Falls, MT on June 14, 2014 for DUI; charged with felony DUI as a fourth-or-subsequent offense based on prior Georgia DUI convictions.
- Georgia convictions occurred in 1986, 1989, 1994, and 1995; defense conceded multiple prior DUI convictions at hearings and plea.
- Farr moved to dismiss the felony enhancement, arguing Georgia’s DUI statute differed from Montana’s because Georgia punished driving with any amount of marijuana/controlled substance present—an element not in Montana law at the time.
- District Court found Farr’s Georgia convictions were under the alcohol-impairment subsection (a)(1), which is virtually identical to Montana’s alcohol DUI statute, and denied the motion.
- Farr pleaded guilty to felony DUI, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss; he was sentenced to 13 months DOC and a consecutive 3-year suspended term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia prior convictions are "similar" to Montana DUI for enhancement | State: Georgia alcohol-impairment subsection matches Montana’s alcohol DUI and is similar | Farr: Georgia statute differs as a whole because it also criminalized driving with any amount of marijuana/CDA in blood, so it is dissimilar | Held: Subsections under which Farr was convicted (alcohol impairment) are virtually identical and therefore similar; prior convictions may be used for enhancement |
| Whether Georgia statute’s additional CDS-based subsection prevents use of convictions for enhancement | State: Irrelevant because Farr’s convictions were for alcohol impairment | Farr: Inclusion of CDS-based offense in Georgia statute makes the statutes dissimilar as a whole | Held: Dissimilarity of an unasserted subsection is irrelevant where defendant was convicted under comparable alcohol subsection |
| Whether the State met its burden proving the specific subsection and validity of prior convictions | State: Court found sufficient evidence and Farr’s concessions supported use | Farr: Records allegedly inconsistent/inexact and insufficient under expungement law | Held: Farr waived/failed to preserve challenges to sufficiency of proof except the statute-dissimilarity claim; record shows concessions that he was convicted under alcohol subsection |
| Whether voluntary guilty plea preserved these pre-plea claims | State: Plea reservation limited to the preserved issue | Farr: Preserved broader sufficiency challenges | Held: Plea waives non-jurisdictional defects; only the statute-dissimilarity claim was preserved and it failed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Weldele, 315 Mont. 452 (2003) (standard for reviewing criminal sentences for legality)
- State v. McNally, 310 Mont. 396 (2002) (de novo review for whether prior conviction may be used to enhance sentence)
- State v. Krebs, 385 Mont. 328 (2016) (State bears burden to prove prior convictions for enhancement)
- Hardin v. State, 334 Mont. 204 (2006) (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional pre-plea defects and defenses)