State v. Maine, 2011 MT 90

Maine was charged with DUI as a fourth offense under § 61-8-731, MCA, based on three prior DUIs from 1991, 1994, and 1997.
Maine moved to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor, arguing the 1997 Rosebud County conviction was constitutionally infirm.
A hearing was held; the court considered affidavits, testimony, and four exhibits related to the 1997 conviction and compulsion defense.
Evidence showed a 1996 incident in Ingomar involving an assault; Maine fled in his pickup and admitted drinking prior to the pursuit, with testimony about compulsion defenses at trial.
The district court concluded the compulsion defense could have been viable but found insufficient to render the 1997 conviction infirm for enhancement purposes.
Maine pleaded guilty under a plea agreement while preserving his right to appeal the denial of the motion to reduce the charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prior conviction can be challenged for validity to defeat enhancement	Maine argues the 1997 conviction is infirm and may not support enhancement.	State contends a presumption of regularity applies; only Gideon claims are allowed under Custis/Daniels/Lackawanna.	Montana adopts a modified framework; defendant bears burden to prove infirmity, State must rebut.
What standard governs proving a constitutionally infirm prior conviction for enhancement	Maine asserts clear evidence of compulsion defeats validity.	State argues the record is inconclusive; defense must show more than ambiguity.	Defendant must prove infirmity by a preponderance with affirmative evidence; mere self-serving assertions insufficient.
Does the record support that trial counsel failed to raise a compulsion defense	Counsel's failure to raise compulsion prejudiced Maine, warranting invalidation of the 1997 conviction.	Record unclear on counsel's strategic reasons; cannot determine failure on direct appeal; postconviction review needed.	Record insufficient to show ineffective assistance on direct appeal; Court declines to resolve on direct appeal.

Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (limits collateral attacks in sentencing absent Gideon claims; sets finality framework)
Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001) (extends Custis reasoning to § 2255/§ 2254 proceedings; rare exceptions)
Lackawanna County Dist. Atty. v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001) (federal collateral attack principles; finality and ability to challenge later)
Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (1967) (due process; invalid conviction cannot be used to enhance punishment)
United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (invalid prior convictions may affect sentencing; not harmless error when involved)
Okland, 283 Mont. 10 (1997) ( Montana framework: presumption of regularity; defendant bears burden to prove infirmity; State must rebut)