State v. M. Hinshaw, 414 P.3d 271

Hinshaw was arrested after a hotel complaint; a search of his car (search warrant) found a syringe with methamphetamine residue. He pled guilty to felony possession of dangerous drugs under a plea agreement dismissing a misdemeanor and allowing the State to seek a five-year PFO sentence.
The State filed notice seeking persistent felony offender (PFO) treatment; Hinshaw sought an exception to the PFO mandatory minimum under § 46-18-222(2), MCA, and challenged the PFO statute’s constitutionality.
At sentencing the court reviewed Hinshaw’s mental-health history and Dr. Woolston’s report (no causal link to the drug possession), extensive criminal record, prior treatment opportunities, and both mitigating and aggravating factors.
The District Court concluded Hinshaw qualified as a PFO and imposed the five-year mandatory PFO sentence to the Department of Corrections, consecutive to other sentences.
The court also imposed fees and costs (assigned counsel fee, PSI fee, court IT fee, surcharge, supervision fees) without a specific on-the-record inquiry into Hinshaw’s ability to pay; defense counsel did not object at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred in failing to consider alternatives to imprisonment (§ 45-9-202)	State: sentence legal; no error—Hinshaw waived issue by not raising it appropriately	Hinshaw: court misunderstood discretion; should have considered/used alternatives rather than PFO minimum	Court: No error — record shows thorough consideration of alternatives and statutory sentencing policy; PFO sentence appropriate
Whether court imposed fees/costs without inquiring into ability to pay (§§ 46-8-113, 46-18-232(2))	State: issue waived because not preserved at trial	Hinshaw: court failed to inquire or make findings on ability to pay before imposing fees	Court: Waived — defendant failed to object at sentencing; statute requires inquiry but failure to object forfeits appellate review absent an illegal sentence; sentence within statutory parameters
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to fees on inability-to-pay grounds	State: record silent on counsel’s reasons; better handled via postconviction relief	Hinshaw: counsel had no reasonable justification for failing to object	Court: Declined to decide on direct appeal — record does not show why counsel acted as she did; ineffective-assistance claim better raised in postconviction proceedings

State v. Moore, 365 Mont. 13, 277 P.3d 1212 (sentencing legality reviewed de novo)
State v. Erickson, 341 Mont. 426, 177 P.3d 1043 (appellate review confined to sentence legality/statutory parameters)
State v. Rosling, 342 Mont. 1, 180 P.3d 1102 (review focuses on statutory authority and affirmative mandates)
State v. Kotwicki, 335 Mont. 344, 151 P.3d 892 (failure to object at trial waives appellate review; exception for illegal sentences)
State v. Thompson, 387 Mont. 339, 394 P.3d 197 (failure to object to lack of inquiry into ability to pay forfeits appellate review)
State v. Kime, 368 Mont. 261, 295 P.3d 580 (ineffective assistance claims reviewable on direct appeal only when record explains counsel’s conduct)
Rose v. State, 370 Mont. 398, 304 P.3d 387 (ineffective-assistance claims often appropriate for postconviction relief when record is silent)