Vanskyock v. Twentieth Judicial District Court, 2017 MT 99

Lance Pavlik pleaded guilty in 2013 to two counts of vehicular homicide while under the influence and two counts of criminal endangerment; the court sentenced him to a DOC commitment with portions suspended and recommended DOC consider placement in the WATCh program.
DOC placement involves an internal preliminary screening process (MASC/Passages); DOC staff may override screening for certain reasons.
DOC probation officer Sandy VanSkyock prepared the PSI and submitted a standard-form request to DOC asking that Pavlik be placed directly at Montana State Prison (MSP), citing statutory ineligibility for MASC and other reasons; DOC approved and later revised the override form.
Three years post-sentencing, Pavlik moved the district court to hold VanSkyock in contempt individually, alleging she falsified information to circumvent the court’s sentencing intent and thereby delayed his WATCh placement and parole eligibility.
VanSkyock moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and because DOC—not she—had placement authority; the district court denied dismissal. VanSkyock petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for supervisory control.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether supervisory control was appropriate	Pavlik wanted contempt proceedings to continue	VanSkyock argued dismissal was required as matter of law	Court granted supervisory control, finding normal appeal inadequate and district court mistaken in law
Whether motion pleaded cognizable criminal contempt	Pavlik sought criminal contempt relief under Title 3 contempt provisions	VanSkyock argued criminal contempt must be prosecuted by State under Title 46 and cannot proceed by private motion	Held: Motion fails as criminal contempt because Title 3 indirect criminal contempt prosecutions require State-initiated Title 46 proceedings
Whether motion pleaded cognizable civil contempt	Pavlik argued VanSkyock’s actions interfered with court order and warrant civil contempt	VanSkyock argued DOC—not she—had placement authority and plaintiff did not seek an act within her power to remedy	Held: Motion fails as civil contempt because alleged act was DOC placement discretion and plaintiff did not identify a specific remedial act within VanSkyock’s individual power
Whether district court should have denied Pavlik’s contempt motion	Pavlik urged contempt hearing and sanctions	VanSkyock argued dismissal on procedural and substantive grounds	Held: District court erred; Supreme Court reversed denial of dismissal and remanded to deny Pavlik’s contempt motion

Kaufman v. Montana Twenty-First Jud. Dist. Ct., 966 P.2d 715 (Mont. 1998) (distinguishes direct vs. indirect contempt and outlines due process protections for indirect criminal contempt)
State v. Bekemans, 293 P.3d 843 (Mont. 2013) (sentencing court may recommend but cannot direct DOC placement; DOC has placement authority)