State v. Nauman, 376 Mont. 326

In 2001 Nauman was convicted of sexual assault (molesting a 12‑year‑old), received a 20‑year MSP sentence with 10 years suspended, and was required to register as a sexual offender.
After release, he registered but later failed to notify authorities of an address change; he was charged in 2011 with Failure to Register as a Sexual or Violent Offender.
On November 21, 2012 Nauman entered an Alford plea under a § 46‑12‑211(1)(b) plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend commitment to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for three years, all suspended.
The plea agreement waived an updated PSI and relied on the 2001 PSI; the State agreed the court could impose the PSI’s recommended probation conditions and that Nauman could object.
At sentencing the District Court instead committed Nauman to Montana State Prison (MSP) for three years, all suspended (a more severe disposition than DOC), and imposed several sex‑offender conditions (conditions 23, 25, 26, 28–32). The court did not offer Nauman an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Did the court err by departing from the plea agreement without allowing plea withdrawal?	State conceded error that court rejected the § 46‑12‑211(1)(b) plea by imposing MSP rather than DOC.	Nauman argued the court violated § 46‑12‑211(4) by not allowing withdrawal after rejecting the plea.	Yes. Court reversed and remanded: District Court must either impose the agreed DOC sentence or allow Nauman to withdraw his plea.
2. Were conditions 23, 25, 26, 28–32 improperly imposed (lack of nexus)?	State argued conditions were supported by evidence and related to rehabilitation and public protection.	Nauman argued lack of nexus because the conviction was Failure to Register (not a sexual offense) and 2001 conduct was too remote.	No error. Court found sufficient nexus based on 2001 conviction, 2001 PSI, and his conduct while on probation. Conditions upheld.
3. Is condition 31 (ban on "pornography") unconstitutionally vague?	State did not adequately brief this constitutional challenge below.	Nauman contended the term "pornography" is vague and violates due process.	Court declined to reach the vagueness/due process claim because it was not adequately briefed or ruled on below; left for remand if parties press it.
4. Standard of review for sentence and conditions	—	—	Sentence legality reviewed; conditions reviewed for abuse of discretion with requirement of nexus to offense or offender.

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (authorizes guilty plea while maintaining assertion of innocence)
State v. Strong, 349 Mont. 417 (Mont. 2009) (commitment to MSP is a more severe disposition than commitment to DOC)
State v. Melton, 364 Mont. 482 (Mont. 2012) (nexus to offender may be shown by past sexual‑offense history relevant to current sentencing for registration failure)
State v. Malloy, 325 Mont. 86 (Mont. 2004) (upheld sex‑offender conditions on Failure to Register sentence where protective objectives supported the conditions)
State v. Ashby, 342 Mont. 187 (Mont. 2008) (standard for reviewing sentencing conditions; offender‑nexus requires recent, significant, or chronic conduct)