State v. M. Sherman, 2017 MT 39

In Oct 2013 Sherman was arrested for distributing methamphetamine; drugs were seized from his motel room and vehicle.
In Dec 2014 Sherman entered an open plea to two felonies and one misdemeanor for possession with intent to distribute; plea exposed him to up to 200 years and sentencing as a persistent felony offender.
The PSI recounted an extensive, drug-related criminal history and a “Jail Adjustment Summary” listing multiple detention incidents, including an uncharged, alleged February 2015 jailhouse rape under investigation.
At sentencing the State offered the jail incident report discussing the alleged rape; defense objected and the court overruled, but stated it would not rely on uncharged allegations or convictions in sentencing.
The court sentenced Sherman to 100 years, explaining its decision largely by reference to Sherman’s lengthy drug-distribution history, community harm, poor rehabilitative prospects, and numerous jail problems; the court did not explicitly state it relied on the rape allegation.
Sherman appealed, arguing due process violation because the court allegedly relied on the unproven rape allegation after assuring him it would not, depriving him of the opportunity to rebut.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court violated due process by considering an unproven jailhouse rape allegation at sentencing	State: Court properly admitted the jail report to show detention behavior; sentence justified by defendant's record and conduct	Sherman: Court assured it would not rely on the allegation; he declined to rebut and was denied opportunity to explain, so sentence relied on misinformation	Court held no due process violation—record shows sentencing rested on drug history and community harm, not the rape allegation

State v. Simmons, 362 Mont. 306, 264 P.3d 706 (2011) (sentencing court’s reference to detention behavior did not require resentencing where record showed other grounds for sentence)
State v. Bauer, 295 Mont. 306, 983 P.2d 955 (1999) (defendant must show sentence was premised on materially inaccurate or prejudicial information)
State v. Mainwaring, 335 Mont. 322, 151 P.3d 53 (2007) (due process requires opportunity to explain or rebut pre-sentencing information)
State v. Mason, 319 Mont. 117, 82 P.3d 903 (2003) (court’s reliance on improper information is required to obtain resentencing)
State v. Phillips, 337 Mont. 248, 159 P.3d 1078 (2007) (no resentencing when record shows court did not rely on improper information)
State v. Webb, 325 Mont. 317, 106 P.3d 521 (2005) (due process protections apply at sentencing)