State v. Sedler, 473 P.3d 406

In 2002 Sedler was convicted of assault with a weapon and committed to DPHHS; his confinement was suspended in 2004 and he registered as a violent offender.
Under the statute in effect at his conviction (1997), violent offenders without intervening convictions automatically exited the registry after ten years.
In 2005 the Legislature amended § 46-23-506 to require offenders with ten-year registration terms to file a petition to be relieved of registration; the court’s role for ten-year registrants is purely ministerial.
Sedler remained on the registry and was reported noncompliant in 2016; he was charged in 2017 with failure to register.
Sedler filed a removal petition in April 2018 (the State did not oppose), entered an Alford plea to the failure-to-register charge, and was later sentenced; he appealed alleging the petition requirement is facially unconstitutional.
The Montana Supreme Court reviewed a facial substantive-due-process challenge to the petition requirement for ten-year registrants and reversed, vacating and dismissing Sedler’s failure-to-register conviction with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 46-23-506(3)(a)’s petition requirement for ten-year violent registrants is facially unconstitutional under substantive due process because it effectively extends registration beyond the statutory maximum.	The State: Sedler waived appellate review by pleading; even if considered, the petition requirement is reasonably related to public-safety goals and permits county-attorney review to prevent improper delisting.	Sedler: The petition is a purely ministerial, arbitrary procedural hurdle that needlessly prolongs registration beyond the ten-year limit and is not reasonably related to public safety.	The Court: The petition requirement for ten-year registrants is arbitrary, not reasonably related to public safety, and therefore unconstitutional; Sedler’s conviction reversed and dismissed.

State v. Egdorf, 77 P.3d 517 (Mont. 2003) (sets out Montana substantive due process framework and presumption of constitutionality).
State v. Webb, 106 P.3d 521 (Mont. 2005) (reasonableness test for statutes under substantive due process).
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (standard for facial constitutional challenges—no set of circumstances test).
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty pleas generally waive most pre-plea constitutional claims).
State v. Coleman, 431 P.3d 26 (Mont. 2018) (facial constitutional challenge to a sentencing statute may be reviewed on appeal).
Montana Cannabis Indus. Ass’n v. State, 368 P.3d 1131 (Mont. 2016) (substantive-due-process reasonableness analysis).