State v. J. Allen, 376 P.3d 791

On Sept. 9, 2014, Joshua James Allen sent 35 separate messages (texts, Facebook, phone) over ~2 hours to his ex-girlfriend B.D., who had an active Order of Protection prohibiting contact.
Messages varied in content (obscenities, apologies, admissions of drinking, declarations of love, acknowledgments that police had been called).
The State charged Allen with 35 counts of violating an Order of Protection (§ 45-5-626, MCA). Allen moved to dismiss 34 counts as a single continuing course of conduct.
The District Court denied the motion. Allen pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of felony stalking, reserving his right to appeal the denial of the dismissal motion.
The Supreme Court reviewed the denial de novo and addressed only the statutory issue because Allen’s double jeopardy claim was not preserved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether multiple counts for separate messages could be dismissed under § 46-11-410(2) as a single continuing course of conduct	State argued multiple prosecutions for separate acts are permitted under § 46-11-410(1); conviction limits of subsection (2) apply only at conviction stage	Allen argued the offense of violating an order of protection is meant to prohibit a continuing course of conduct, so § 46-11-410(2)(e) bars multiple charges arising from the same transaction	Affirmed denial: § 45-5-626 is not defined as prohibiting a continuing course of conduct (per State v. Strong), and § 46-11-410(2) limits convictions, not charging; State may prosecute multiple offenses arising from the same transaction
Whether denial should be reversed on double jeopardy grounds	N/A (State did not argue)	Allen briefly referenced double jeopardy below and argued multiplicity implicates constitutional protection	Not reached on merits: double jeopardy claim was not preserved for appeal and therefore not considered

State v. Strong, 380 Mont. 471, 356 P.3d 1078 (Mont. 2015) (held § 45-5-626 is not defined to prohibit a continuing course of conduct)
State v. Dixon, 299 Mont. 165, 998 P.2d 544 (Mont. 2000) (distinguishes prosecutorial charging under § 46-11-410(1) from conviction limits under § 46-11-410(2))
State v. Goodenough, 358 Mont. 219, 245 P.3d 14 (Mont. 2010) (discusses same-transaction prosecutions and subsection (2) conviction limits)
In re G.S., 312 Mont. 108, 59 P.3d 1063 (Mont. 2002) (general constitutional references in district court insufficient to preserve issues for appeal)
State v. Zink, 374 Mont. 102, 319 P.3d 596 (Mont. 2014) (standard of review: denial of motion to dismiss reviewed de novo)