State v. Whalen, 2013 MT 26

Whalen pled guilty to one count of felony negligent vehicular assault and one count of felony criminal endangerment on August 13, 2010.
The offenses arose from a Billings, Montana incident on September 25, 2009, where Whalen, a school bus driver, struck a 15-year-old in a crosswalk, failed to report, then continued transporting students.
Whalen later submitted to a breath test at the jail showing an alcohol concentration of .118.
At sentencing, Whalen asked for a three-year deferred sentence with community service; the State urged a ten-year DOC commitment with suspensions and a fine.
The district court sentenced Whalen to six years in the DOC with 18 months suspended on each count, running concurrently, plus 100 hours of community service and 29 probation conditions, including license suspension.
Whalen appealed, challenging illegal sentencing, unreasonable probation conditions, the validity of his guilty pleas, and the SRD process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court impose an illegal sentence?	Whalen argues improper deviations from mandatory sentencing.	State asserts sentence stayed within statutory authority.	No illegal sentence; within statutory parameters.
Were probation conditions unreasonable or unconstitutional?	Whalen challenges 12 conditions for lack of nexus to rehab or protection.	State contends conditions relate to rehab/protection; lenihan exception does not apply due to lack of objected-at-sentencing issues.	Conditions were reviewable for reasonableness; Lenihan exception did not apply; conditions upheld on appeal.
Was Whalen’s guilty plea illegally obtained?	Whalen contends plea issues; relies on motion to withdraw in district court.	State asserts improper briefing; no preserved argument in appellate record.	Issue not properly before court due to inadequate briefing and lack of district court record on withdrawal.
Is the Sentence Review Division process unconstitutional?	Whalen challenges SRD as unconstitutional.	State contends issue is not ripe until application is pursued.	Not ripe; no justiciable controversy; SRD issue not resolved.

State v. Strong, 2009 MT 65 (Mont.) (limits review to legality of sentence; but discusses standards for review)
State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338 (Mont.) (narrow exception to review illegal or statutory-mandate-exceeding sentences on appeal)
State v. Kotwicki, 2007 MT 17 (Mont.) (statutory parameters; distinguishes illegal vs. objectionable sentences)
State v. Garrymore, 2006 MT 245 (Mont.) (clarifies illegal vs. objectionable sentence concepts)
State v. Mainwaring, 2007 MT 14 (Mont.) (as-applied constitutional challenges to sentencing; limits on appellate review)
State v. Hunter, 2008 MT 395 (Mont.) (requires nexus between probation conditions and rehabilitation/protection)
State v. Ashby, 2008 MT 83 (Mont.) (probation-nexus standard; conditions must relate to offense or offender)
State v. Ellis, 2007 MT 210 (Mont.) (facial challenges to statutes; preserved challenges reviewed)
State v. Micklon, 2003 MT 45 (Mont.) (illustrates active acquiescence analysis for Lenihan exception)
State v. Walker, 2007 MT 205 (Mont.) (active participation bars Lenihan relief for sentencing objections)