State v. T. Le
2017 MT 82
| Mont. | 2017Background
- On July 12, 2015, Le was stopped for speeding; officer discovered vacuum-sealed bags in his vehicle and arrested him after observing ~23 pounds of marijuana.
- Le was charged with Distribution (intent to distribute) but, per a plea agreement, the charge was amended to Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (felony).
- The Amended Information listed potential penalties (up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $50,000 fine) but did not reference the mandatory market-value fine under § 45-9-130, MCA.
- At the change-of-plea hearing, the court advised Le the maximum included a $50,000 fine “plus a penalty of 35 percent of the market value of the drugs”; Le pleaded guilty (with interpretation).
- At sentencing the court imposed a six-year deferred sentence, a $1,500 fine to a task force, and a $15,000 fine calculated as 35% of the market value under § 45-9-130, MCA.
- Le appealed, arguing the § 45-9-130 fine was an improper sentence enhancement (Apprendi/§ 46-1-401, MCA), excessive under the Montana Constitution, and raised (for plain error) a double jeopardy-related claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 45-9-130 35% market-value fine is an illegal sentence enhancement under Apprendi/§ 46-1-401 | State: The fine is a mandatory statutory punishment triggered by a conviction for possession; no impermissible enhancement occurred because the plea admitted possession | Le: The fine is an enhancement because the court had to determine market value (a fact not alleged in the information or admitted), so Apprendi requires that fact be charged/proved or admitted | Held: Not an illegal enhancement — the mandatory 35% fine is triggered by the admitted fact of possession; market-value calculation does not increase the statutory range beyond that to which Le was exposed by his plea |
| Whether the $15,000 fine violates the Montana Excessive Fines clause | State: The statutory market-value formula incorporates proportionality; fine falls within statutory limits | Le: The imposed fine is grossly disproportional to the offense and thus excessive under Mont. Const. art. II, § 22 | Held: No excessive-fines violation — the market-value basis preserves proportionality; $15,000 is below the discretionary maximum and not grossly disproportional |
| Whether appellate plain-error or Lenihan review should be applied to unpreserved double-jeopardy argument | State: No plain error; government had authority to charge; Lenihan not applicable | Le: Requests review under plain error or Lenihan despite not raising double jeopardy below | Held: Declined plain-error review and Lenihan relief — no showing government lacked authority; claim not appropriate for exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase statutory maximum must be found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted)
- State v. Ghostbear, 376 Mont. 500 (2014) (defining enhancing facts under Montana law and application of § 46-1-401)
- State v. Good, 323 Mont. 378 (2004) (excessive fines assessed by Montana Constitution assessed by gross disproportionality)
- State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338 (1979) (Lenihan rule permits appellate review of illegal sentence despite lack of objection)