State v. Norman, 244 P.3d 737

Norman was convicted by a Ravalli County jury of unlawfully possessing game animals in three counts and appeals the jury instructions and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
FWP investigated Norman in HD 270 for unlawful hunting activity; evidence included animal parts, photos, and a computer, tied to knowledge of unlawful takes by Norman.
Norman patrolled Iten’s property without a license and without permission to bring others; in exchange for patrolling, he could shoot one legal elk and one legal deer annually from Iten’s land.
The State charged three counts: Count 1 (unlawful possession of four animals, value over $1,000; May 2007), Count 2 (two animals, value over $1,000; 2004), Count 3 (three animals, value over $1,000; 2003).
Values were determined by statute, with trophy animals and aggregation rules influencing whether the total value exceeded $1,000; aggregation could occur within a 45-day period or as part of the same transaction.
The jury found Count 1 total value over $1,000 and Counts 2 and 3 totals over $1,000; sentencing included a deferred imposition for Count 1 and consecutive prison terms for Counts 2 and 3, plus lifetime hunting/trapping/fishing bans.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err in the Count 1 Elements Instruction regarding value exceeding $1,000?	Norman argues Apprendi requires a jury finding of value over $1,000.	Norman contends the instruction failed to identify value as an element.	No reversible error; verdict found over $1,000 and Apprendi concerns were addressed by the verdict.
Was the grouping of animals under Count 1 within the scope of the statute’s same-transaction provision properly explained to the jury?	Norman asserts grouping violated Apprendi and misdefined same transaction.	State argues grouping was proper and a factual jury question.	No reversible error; jury asked to decide same transaction, and instruction followed statutory language.
Did Special Instruction A create an Apprendi violation or prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel?	Norman claims Special Instruction A allowed conviction without jury finding for each animal.	State and court found instruction consistent with verdict; no prejudice.	No Apprendi error; felony sentences authorized by jury verdict; ineffective assistance claim rejected.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (fundamental requirement that facts increasing penalty be found by a jury)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (jury must find facts that set the sentence beyond the statutory maximum)
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) (applies Apprendi to sentencing procedures)
State v. Field, 328 Mont. 26 (2005) (value-enhancing facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Finley, 915 P.2d 208 (1996) (plain-error review when fundamental rights implicated)
State v. West, 356 Mont. 244 (2008) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
State v. Ankeny, 243 P.3d 391 (2010) (threshold for reviewing preserved claims on direct appeal)
State v. Gunderson, 357 Mont. 142 (2010) (claims on direct appeal allocation of ineffective assistance review)
State v. Archambault, 152 P.3d 698 (2007) (jury instruction analysis in criminal cases)
State v. Taylor, 231 P.3d 79 (2010) (Finley-like considerations in reviewing claims)
Whitlow v. State, 343 Mont. 90 (2008) (Strickland prejudice and deficient performance)