State v. Rambold, 325 P.3d 686

Rambold, a teacher, was charged with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent involving a 14-year-old student.
A deferred prosecution agreement was entered after the student's death, with Rambold required to complete a Sexual Offender Treatment Program.
Rambold violated the treatment program's terms, leading the State to seek renewed prosecution and Rambold to plead guilty to one count under a binding plea agreement.
District Court sentenced Rambold to 15 years with all but 31 days suspended, citing non-substantial program violations and interviews with the victim.
After public outcry, the court acknowledged the illegality of the sentence and ordered resentencing, later remanded to a new judge for reevaluation.
The issue on appeal concerns whether the sentence was illegal and whether the appeal is properly before the Court despite no contemporaneous objection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preclusion of appeal due to lack of objection	State contends §46-20-103(2)(h) allows review when sentence is illegal, despite no objection.	Rambold relies on Lenihan to require objection to preserve illegality.	The State may appeal illegal-sentence; Lenihan exception not required.
legality of the suspended portion of the sentence	Rambold asserts mandatory minimum and exceptions apply; state contends no applicable exceptions.	Rambold argues §46-18-222(5) exception applies due to lack of bodily injury element.	No applicable exceptions; sentence is illegal and must be vacated and remanded with reassignment.

State v. Fauque, 2000 MT 168, 300 Mont. 307, 4 P.3d 651 (MT Supreme Court (2000)) (mandates minimum four-year term where victim <16 and offender ≥3 years older)
State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 602 P.2d 997 (Mont. 1979) (allows appellate review of illegal sentences without prior objection)
State v. Kotwicki, 2007 MT 17, 335 Mont. 344, 151 P.3d 892 (MT Supreme Court (2007)) (defines legality of sentences within statutory authority)
State v. Bailey, 2004 MT 87, 320 Mont. 501, 87 P.3d 1032 (MT Supreme Court (2004)) (clarifies application of minimums and suspensions under updated statutes)
State v. Makarchuk, 2009 MT 82, 349 Mont. 507, 204 P.3d 1213 (MT Supreme Court (2009)) (discusses limits of appellate review for sentence legality)
State v. Petersen, 2011 MT 22, 359 Mont. 200, 247 P.3d 731 (MT Supreme Court (2011)) (remand for resentencing where sentence found unlawful)
State v. Heafner, 2010 MT 87, 356 Mont. 128, 231 P.3d 1087 (MT Supreme Court (2010)) (when sentence unlawful, court may vacate and remand)