445 P.3d 777
Mont.2019Background
- Michael Joe Thomas committed felony DUI on July 23, 2016; convicted by jury in January 2017 and sentenced July 27, 2017.
- Before sentencing, the Montana Legislature passed HB 133 (2017), which revised the Persistent Felony Offender (PFO) definition: repealed § 46-18-501 (2015) and required two prior felonies (one sexual or violent) to enhance on a third felony, effective July 1, 2017 and applicable to offenses committed after June 30, 2017.
- The State sought PFO designation based on a prior felony escape conviction under the 2015 statute; Thomas would not qualify under the 2017 definition.
- The District Court designated Thomas a PFO under § 46-18-501 (2015) and imposed a 10-year sentence with no suspension.
- On appeal Thomas argued he was entitled to the ameliorative 2017 PFO definition because HB 133 was effective before his sentencing; the State argued the 2015 law controls because the offense occurred before July 1, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court erred by applying the 2015 PFO definition at sentencing | Thomas: HB 133 was effective before sentencing, so he should receive the ameliorative 2017 PFO definition | State: HB 133 applies only to offenses committed after June 30, 2017, so 2015 law governs Thomas’ 2016 offense | Court affirmed: 2015 PFO statute applied because HB 133 expressly applies only to offenses committed after June 30, 2017 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 279 Mont. 34, 926 P.2d 712 (1996) (when a sentencing statute is repealed or amended between commission and sentencing, and the change ameliorates punishment, defendants may receive the later law absent a savings clause)
- State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 915 P.2d 208 (1996) (the law in effect at the time of the crime controls as to possible sentence)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740, 408 P.2d 948 (Cal. 1966) (ameliorative statutory changes that take effect before sentencing may apply to pending cases where legislature gives no contrary direction)
- State v. Reams, 284 Mont. 448, 945 P.2d 52 (1997) (defendants are entitled to ameliorative changes to sentencing statutes absent a clear legislative savings clause)
- State v. Coleman, 185 Mont. 299, 605 P.2d 1000 (1979) (ameliorative amendments do not violate ex post facto and courts may apply beneficial changes to defendants)