State v. Phillips, 312 P.3d 445

Oct. 15, 2010 deputies attempted to locate 7890 West Riverside; made a knock-and-talk at nearby premises when lost driving Missoula County.
From the front door through a storm-door window, deputies observed marijuana plants and dried marijuana; Phillips identified 7820 West Riverside as his address and claimed medical marijuana provider status.
Police measured marijuana, allowed enough for six patients including Phillips, and confiscated 868 grams and 40 plants.
On May 23, 2011 Phillips was charged with criminal production or manufacture of dangerous drugs, marijuana in excess of one pound, a felony.
Phillips moved to suppress the residence search; district court denied, finding officers entered lawfully and observed marijuana in plain view despite contested address markings.
A second suppression hearing with witnesses indicating addresses were marked prior to 2010 did not change the court’s ruling; suppression denied.
On June 26, 2012 Phillips pled guilty to the offense; the court imposed an $800 fee for court-appointed counsel; Phillips appealed the suppression ruling and the fee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the suppression denial error?	Phillips contends officers entered unlawfully, invalidating plain-view seizure.	State argues officers were lawfully on the property and observed marijuana in plain view.	No; denial affirmed; officers acted lawfully and observations supported seizure.
Is the court-appointed counsel fee illegal as applied?	Phillips argues the $800 fee exceeds statute and failed ability-to-pay inquiry.	State concedes overcharge but notes procedural objections; Lenihan exception allows review of legality only for the fee amount.	Remand to correct fee to the amount allowed by law at time of offense; ability-to-pay issue not reviewable absent objection.

State v. Loh, 275 Mont. 460, 914 P.2d 592 (Mont. 1996) (plain-view seizure requires lawful initial presence at the viewing location)
State v. Campbell, 278 Mont. 236, 924 P.2d 1304 (Mont. 1996) (credibility determinations in suppression hearings afforded deference)
State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 602 P.2d 997 (Mont. 1979) (Lenihan exception permits review of allegedly illegal sentences)
State v. Kotwicki, 2007 MT 17, 335 Mont. 344, 151 P.3d 892 (Mont. 2007) (failure to consider ability to pay is objectionable, not illegal, absent objection)
State v. MacDonald, 2013 MT 105, 370 Mont. 1, 299 P.3d 839 (Mont. 2013) (reiterates Kotwicki rule on review of sentencing procedural issues)