State v. J. Parkhill, 414 P.3d 1244

Jason Parkhill pleaded guilty to 2013 felony PFMA (victim J.P.) with a deferred sentence; that deferred sentence was later revoked after further offenses.
While under the deferred 2013 sentence, Parkhill committed additional PFMA-related offenses against K.M. (2014 and 2015); the State amended charges to add witness-tampering counts related to attempts to dissuade K.M. from cooperating.
In 2016 Parkhill was charged for PFMA and related offenses involving J.G.; he later pled no contest to felony witness tampering after contacting J.G. from jail.
At combined sentencing for the 2013, 2015, and 2016 convictions the District Court imposed probation conditions restricting contact with victims, including two conditions limiting Parkhill’s contact with K.M. despite K.M. having submitted letters both describing abuse and requesting contact for counseling.
Parkhill objected at sentencing, asking the court to lift the no-contact restrictions as to K.M. or replace them with a narrower “no unreasonable contact” condition; the court denied the request and emphasized victim protection given Parkhill’s history.
Parkhill appealed, arguing the contact restrictions were illegal/overbroad, unnecessary for rehabilitation, and infringed on his marriage/privacy/due-process rights; the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Parkhill's Argument	Held
Validity and reasonableness of probation conditions restricting contact with K.M.	Conditions are authorized by statutes and have a nexus to the offenses and victim protection; not all contact is prohibited.	Conditions are unlawful/overbroad and unnecessary for rehabilitation; less restrictive alternatives suffice.	Court upheld conditions as falling within statutory authority and not an abuse of discretion given evidence and victim protection needs.
Preservation of as-applied constitutional challenge (marriage, privacy, due process)	Object only raised generally at sentencing; Parkhill failed to preserve an as-applied constitutional claim for appeal.	General objection at sentencing preserved the constitutional challenge to the contact restrictions.	Court held Parkhill did not preserve the as-applied constitutional challenge; Lenihan exception inapplicable to as-applied claims.

State v. Guill, 359 Mont. 225, 248 P.3d 826 (Mont. 2011) (discussed restricted-contact condition in the spouse/co-defendant context)
State v. Ashby, 342 Mont. 187, 179 P.3d 1164 (Mont. 2008) (standard for reviewing probation conditions: legality then reasonableness/nexus)
State v. Bullplume, 370 Mont. 453, 305 P.3d 753 (Mont. 2013) (will reverse condition if overly broad or nexus absent)
State v. LaFreniere, 342 Mont. 309, 180 P.3d 1161 (Mont. 2008) (general constitutional implication does not preserve issue for appeal)
State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 602 P.2d 997 (Mont. 1979) (narrow exception permitting facial statutory challenges to be raised on appeal)
State v. Robertson, 381 Mont. 75, 364 P.3d 580 (Mont. 2015) (Lenihan exception does not apply to as-applied challenges)