State v. Sebastian
313 P.3d 198
Mont.2013Background
- Sebastian was convicted of felony burglary and misdemeanor criminal mischief in 2011 and placed on five years of supervised release with conditions.
- He has a severe Crohn’s disease and has been medicated; he admits to medicinal marijuana use and to crushing/snorting certain meds.
- In Aug. 2012 he exhibited behaviors suggesting impairment; probation officer sought revocation and long-term inpatient treatment.
- On Aug. 23, 2012 he was involved in an accident; officer observed possible impairment and blood tests later indicated marijuana/methamphetamine components.
- State filed a petition to revoke on Sept. 7, 2012; hearing scheduled for Oct. 23, 2012; Sebastian moved for a continuance alleging undisclosed discovery.
- District Court denied the continuance; after the hearing it revoked his suspended sentence and recommended intensive treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse discretion by denying continuance despite undisclosed evidence? | Sebastian: due process requires disclosure; denial prejudiced defense. | Sebastian: evidence not disclosed; continuance needed to ensure fairness. | No abuse; sufficient evidence supported revocation; undisclosed items were not needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (due process in revocation hearings)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (parole/probation revocation standards identical)
- Nelson, 225 Mont. 215 (Montana Supreme Court, 1987) (due process notice and opportunity to confront adverse witnesses)
- Pedersen, 318 Mont. 262, 80 P.3d 79 (Montana Supreme Court, 2003) (evidence admitted in revocation must be tethered to prehearing notices)
- Gillingham, 176 P.3d 1075 (Montana Supreme Court, 2008) (single violation may support revocation; standard of review)
- Stuit, 576 P.2d 264 (Montana Supreme Court, 1978) (preponderance standard for probation violations)
- Triplett, 195 P.3d 819 (Montana Supreme Court, 2008) (due process considerations in revocation)
- Kingery, 779 P.2d 495 (Montana Supreme Court, 1989) (parole/probation revocation framework)