State v. Walter, 431 P.3d 22

Walter pleaded guilty to felony possession of dangerous drugs, misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer. No plea agreement was entered.
The State sought sentencing under the Persistent Felony Offender (PFO) statutes, which carried a mandatory five-year minimum. The PSI recommended a DOC placement/treatment rather than strict PFO minimum.
Defense counsel argued a statutory conflict: the drug statute (§ 45-9-102(7), MCA) presumes deferred sentencing for first-time drug offenders and might control over general PFO statutes.
At sentencing the District Court believed the PFO mandatory minimum controlled, called the issue "novel," and imposed the five-year mandatory PFO term. The court expressed a desire to prioritize treatment but felt constrained by statute.
On appeal Walter argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to cite the Alternative Sentencing Authority (ASA) statute (§ 45-9-202, MCA) and State v. Brendal, which interprets ASA’s interplay with PFO sentencing; the State conceded a separate user-surcharge fee error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defense counsel’s failure to cite ASA statute and Brendal deprived Walter of effective assistance of counsel	Walter: counsel was deficient for not citing § 45-9-202 and Brendal; had counsel done so, court likely would have exercised discretion to avoid mandatory PFO term	State: PFO prerequisites were met and mandatory minimum applied; § 46-18-222 exception inapplicable	Court held counsel was ineffective; prejudice shown because court likely would have sentenced differently if informed of ASA and Brendal; reversed and remanded for resentencing
Whether court improperly imposed multiple IT user surcharges	Walter: fees were incorrectly calculated	State: conceded error	Court instructed district court to strike a $30 surcharge and impose only one $10 surcharge per § 3-1-317(1)(a) — error corrected on remand

State v. Brendal, 351 Mont. 395, 213 P.3d 448 (Mont. 2009) (holds court may use Alternative Sentencing Authority even when PFO designation applies)
State v. Damon, 328 Mont. 276, 119 P.3d 1194 (Mont. 2005) (PFO statutes applied to repeat DUI defendant)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance of counsel test)
Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263 (2014) (attorney’s ignorance of fundamental point of law plus failure to research can constitute deficient performance)