State v. T.Thibeault, 490 P.3d 105

Trooper stopped Terence Thibeault after a citizen report led to a consensual vehicle search that revealed a marijuana‑concentrate pipe and a small marijuana container; Thibeault was cited for misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.
Thibeault failed to appear on the original citation; a bench warrant later issued but was quashed when he appeared for trial.
Justice Court found him guilty and, under the statutory presumption favoring deferral for first‑time offenders, deferred imposition of sentence for six months but imposed conditions including a $350 fine, 20 hours community service, and 10 days in county jail (avoidable by completing community service and five days on labor detail).
Thibeault did not object at sentencing but later appealed, arguing the 10‑day jail condition was an illegal condition of a deferred imposition of sentence under § 45‑10‑103, MCA.
The District Court affirmed; the Montana Supreme Court reviewed whether the unpreserved challenge to the jail condition was reviewable under Lenihan and whether limited incarceration is statutorily authorized as a condition of deferral.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thibeault)	Held
Whether a jail term may be imposed as a condition of a deferred imposition of sentence for first‑offense possession of drug paraphernalia	§46‑18‑201(4)(b) expressly authorizes up to 180 days’ incarceration as a condition of deferral; that authority complements the CPDP presumption in §45‑10‑103	§45‑10‑103’s language (presumption of entitlement to a "deferred imposition of sentence of imprisonment") precludes imposing a condition that requires incarceration for a first‑time offense	Court: The 10‑day jail condition was facially legal; §46‑18‑201(4)(b) authorizes incarceration as a condition of deferral and is consistent with §45‑10‑103; affirmed
Whether the unpreserved sentencing objection is reviewable on appeal	(State) The condition is facially legal so waiver is dispositive	(Thibeault) Lenihan exception applies because the jail condition is facially illegal under §45‑10‑103	Court: Reviewed under Lenihan (unpreserved facially illegal sentence claims are reviewable) and found the condition lawful
Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing 10 days jail	(State) Not raised on appeal; discretionary review not before Court	(Thibeault) He did not argue abuse on appeal	Court: Did not reach abuse‑of‑discretion question — only legality was decided

State v. Lenihan, 602 P.2d 997 (Mont. 1979) (establishes exception to waiver for unpreserved claims that a sentence is facially illegal)
State v. Drew, 490 P.2d 230 (Mont. 1971) (earlier decision questioning jail as a condition of deferral under pre‑1973 statutes)
State ex rel. Woodbury v. Mont. Thirteenth Jud. Dist. Ct., 495 P.2d 1119 (Mont. 1972) (clarifies Drew; recognizes distinction between deferral with conditions and imposing a jail sentence)
In re Williams, 399 P.2d 732 (Mont. 1965) (probation condition requiring jail‑based treatment does not convert probation into a sentence of imprisonment)
State v. Maldonado, 578 P.2d 296 (Mont. 1978) (rejects the argument that jail as a condition of deferred sentence is per se illegal)
State v. Zimmerman, 228 P.3d 1109 (Mont. 2010) (defines facially illegal sentence standard and limits of sentencing authority)
State v. Tomaskie, 157 P.3d 691 (Mont. 2007) (explains legal nature of deferred imposition of sentence as a final judgment subject to conditions)
State v. Bolt, 664 P.2d 322 (Mont. 1983) (discusses limits on overcoming statutory presumption of deferral for first‑time offenders)
State v. Wilkes, 480 P.3d 823 (Mont. 2021) (addresses when aggravating circumstances may overcome presumption of deferral)