State v. Morris, 2010 MT 259

Morris pleaded no contest to Accountability to Prostitution and Obstructing a Peace Officer in Cascade County; Promoting Prostitution was dropped.
Plea agreement stated sentencing discretion lay with the district court, subject to statutory/case law limits, with fines of $500 and two suspended six-month sentences to run consecutively proposed by the State.
Judge accepted the plea, and on June 3, 2010 sentenced Morris to two consecutive six-month jail terms with no suspensions and two $500 fines.
The court gave eight reasons for sentencing, including offense severity, community harm, impact on victims, Morris’s former public offices, and expected trial probability.
Morris challenged the sentences on constitutional grounds, due process, and self-incrimination, appealing to Montana Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences, finding them legal, non-abusive, and properly based on stipulated facts and the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the sentences legal under Montana law and policy?	Morris argues §46-18-101 and due process were violated; sentence policy considerations were improper.	Morris's arguments lack authority; district court properly considered relevant factors and policy.	No violation; sentences legal and properly reasoned.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by imposing the maximum penalties?	Two consecutive six-month terms with no suspension and fines constituted abuse and cruel/unusual punishment.	Eight valid reasons supported maximum-allowed penalties; not arbitrary or excessive.	No abuse; sentences within statutory authority and reasonable under the circumstances.

State v. Walker, 338 Mont. 529, 167 P.3d 879 (2007) (due process and sentencing information must be accurate; burden on defendant to show material inaccuracy)
State v. Mason, 319 Mont. 117, 82 P.3d 903 (2003) (no due process violation where sentencing based on proper information)
State v. Shreves, 313 Mont. 252, 60 P.3d 991 (2002) (cannot punish for silence or failure to admit guilt when defendant exercises rights)
State v. Cesnik, 329 Mont. 63, 122 P.3d 456 (2005) (cannot punish for invoking right to appeal when maintaining innocence)
State v. Gunderson, 357 Mont. 142, 237 P.3d 74 (2010) (standard of review for legality and abuse of discretion in non-eligible sentence cases)
State v. Hinkle, 344 Mont. 236, 186 P.3d 1279 (2008) (sentence review is statutory, not a constitutional right)