State v. J. Ellison, 393 P.3d 192

Jennifer Ellison drove intoxicated in Jan 2015, running another vehicle off the road; charged with felony criminal endangerment and several misdemeanors (DUI, no insurance, no valid license).
While released pretrial she repeatedly failed drug tests and violated release conditions; multiple revocation proceedings and missed hearings followed; she was arrested in Sept 2015.
On Oct 1, 2015 Ellison pleaded guilty to all counts; the State agreed to recommend a three-year deferred sentence for the criminal endangerment count as part of the plea agreement.
At sentencing the State stated only that it had recommended a deferred sentence under the plea agreement but, in response to defense arguments about medical treatment and addiction, voiced concerns about Ellison’s housing and past noncompliance.
The District Court rejected the recommended deferred sentence, imposed a five-year DOC sentence with three years suspended on the felony count, and assessed four $10 court information technology surcharges (one per count) totaling $40.
On appeal the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the sentence on the felony count (no breach by the State) but held the court technology surcharge must be imposed per user (one $10 surcharge) and remanded to correct that error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State breached plea agreement by undermining its promise to recommend a 3-year deferred sentence	State: prosecutor’s sentencing comments were responsive and did not undermine the recommendation	Ellison: prosecutor’s remarks about noncompliance and housing aimed to convince court to reject the bargained recommendation, breaching the plea	No breach; State’s comments were permissible response and court independently rejected deferred sentence based on need for DOC treatment
Whether court information technology surcharge can be imposed per count	State conceded the per-count imposition was lawful	Ellison: surcharge should be per user, not per conviction	Surcharge must be imposed per user; reverse and remand to modify to a single $10 surcharge

State v. Rardon, 2002 MT 345, 313 Mont. 321, 61 P.3d 132 (prosecutor may not aggressively solicit testimony intended to undermine plea agreement)
State v. LaMere, 1997 MT 272 Mont. 355, 900 P.2d 926 (prosecutor’s sentencing remarks breached plea agreement where they suggested deferred sentence was inappropriate)
State v. Bartosh, 2007 MT 59, 336 Mont. 212, 154 P.3d 58 (discusses limits on prosecutor conduct when recommending plea-bargained sentence)
State v. Pope, 2017 MT 12, 386 Mont. 194, 387 P.3d 870 (court information technology surcharge authorized per user, not per conviction)