State v. M. Tippets, 2022 MT 81

Tippets pleaded guilty to felony Criminal Endangerment and received a five-year suspended commitment to DPHHS with probation in June 2019.
While on probation he repeatedly violated conditions (multiple admissions and positive tests for methamphetamine) and generated numerous case-management responses.
On October 11, 2019, DOC sanctioned Tippets to 60 days in the START facility Mental Health Unit; he spent 4 days in jail awaiting transfer and 56 days at START, released December 10, 2019.
After release he committed additional violations; DOC petitioned to revoke his suspended sentence; at disposition the District Court revoked the suspension and imposed a new DPHHS sentence in July 2020.
The District Court credited Tippets for 4 days in jail but denied credit for the 56 days at START, concluding START was not a “detention center” under § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA; Tippets appealed and also raised an argument about statutory revocation procedure under § 46-18-203(8).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tippets preserved the claim that the District Court lacked statutory authority under § 46‑18‑203(8) to revoke his suspension	State: Tippets failed to raise this objection below, so it is unpreserved and not reviewable	Tippets: District Court did not follow the statutory MIIG procedure for compliance violations under § 46‑18‑203(8)	Court: Claim was unpreserved; error (if any) produced an objectionable but not an illegal sentence, so Lenihan review not available; no plain‑error review requested or granted
Whether Tippets is entitled to credit for 60 days served at START under § 46‑18‑203(7)(b) (credit for time served in a detention center)	State: START is not a statutory "detention center" so only 4 days (jail) credit applies; DOC conceded the 4 jail days	Tippets: START is a secured facility functionally confining probationers and thus qualifies as a detention center; he is entitled to credit for all 60 days	Court: START meets the statutory definition of "detention center" in § 7‑32‑2241(1) applied to § 46‑18‑203(7)(b); remanded to award credit for the full 60 days (in addition to the 4 days already conceded)

State v. Graves, 355 P.3d 769 (Mont. 2015) (de novo review for legal questions about a court's authority)
State v. Kotwicki, 151 P.3d 892 (Mont. 2007) (distinguishes "illegal" sentences from "objectionable" sentences for Lenihan review)
State v. Lenihan, 602 P.2d 997 (Mont. 1979) (establishes that illegal or statutorily excessive sentences may be reviewed on appeal despite lack of objection)
State v. Parks, 450 P.3d 889 (Mont. 2019) (credit for time served is a legal mandate reviewed de novo)
State v. Oropeza, 456 P.3d 1023 (Mont. 2020) (discusses 2017 amendments creating compliance vs. non‑compliance violations)
State v. Trujillo, 464 P.3d 72 (Mont. 2020) (plain error review standards)
State v. Hornstein, 229 P.3d 1206 (Mont. 2010) (credit for time served treated as legal requirement)