State v. F. Torres
2017 MT 177
Mont.2017Background
- In 2008 Franco Leo Torres pled guilty to felony Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA) and received a three-year deferred sentence; the sentence was revoked in 2009 and he was sentenced to five years with two years suspended.
- Torres served three years in DOC and in January 2012 began serving the suspended portion of his sentence.
- In August 2013 Torres was arrested for a new PFMA in Yellowstone County; Lewis and Clark County filed a second petition to revoke his suspended sentence alleging the new charge and other probation violations.
- Torres moved to set aside his 2008 PFMA conviction, arguing the pre-2013 PFMA statute violated equal protection and thus his 2008 conviction was unlawful; the district court denied the motion.
- Torres admitted the revocation allegations and the court revoked his suspended sentence, imposing a two-year DOC term to run concurrently with the Yellowstone County sentence; Torres appealed the denial and revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Torres may challenge the legality of his 2008 sentence in the revocation proceeding | State: revocation proceeding is not a forum to attack the underlying conviction or sentence | Torres: revocation is an appropriate venue to raise a collateral constitutional challenge to his 2008 PFMA conviction and seek relief under Maine or Lenihan/plain error | Court held Torres cannot collaterally attack the conviction in the revocation proceeding and revoked sentence was proper |
| Whether Torres preserved the constitutional challenge to the PFMA statute | State: Torres forfeited the challenge by pleading guilty in 2008 | Torres: asks for review under Maine, Lenihan, or plain error despite plea | Court held the guilty plea waived non-jurisdictional constitutional challenges; court declined Lenihan/plain error relief |
| Whether prior precedent (Theeler) requires invalidation rather than severance of PFMA statute | Torres: Theeler shows PFMA statute violated equal protection and should be invalidated rather than severed | State: Watts and plea-waiver law control; Torres forfeited the challenge | Court declined to reach the merits because challenge was untimely and waived; did not grant relief on statute invalidation |
| Whether Maine allows collateral attack in this context | Torres: Maine permits collateral challenges to prior convictions used for enhancement, so revocation is acceptable | State: Maine applies to challenges to prior convictions used for enhancement, not to attacking the conviction underlying the revocation | Court held Maine inapplicable because no prior conviction was being used for enhancement in the revocation proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Muhammad, 301 Mont. 1, 43 P.3d 318 (Mont. 2002) (revocation proceedings are not proper forum to review legality of original sentence when not previously appealed)
- State v. Maine, 360 Mont. 182, 255 P.3d 64 (Mont. 2011) (addresses collateral challenges to prior convictions offered for enhancement)
- State v. Watts, 286 Mont. 8, 385 P.3d 960 (Mont. 2016) (guilty plea that expressly waives appeal rights forfeits challenge to statute's constitutionality)
- State v. Theeler, 385 Mont. 471, 385 P.3d 551 (Mont. 2016) (held former PFMA statute violated equal protection and severed offending language)
- State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 602 P.2d 997 (Mont. 1979) (standards for collateral attack relief)
- State v. White, 348 Mont. 196, 199 P.3d 274 (Mont. 2008) (untimely challenges to original sentence are barred in revocation proceedings)
- United States v. Warren, 335 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2003) (federal supervised release revocation is not proper forum for collateral attack on underlying conviction or sentence)