Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lenihangreen2 sentences2013She also acknowledges that she failed to object to the restitution order at the time of sentencing but, relying on our decision in State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 343 , 602 P.2d 997, 1000 (1979), she asserts that because her sentence for restitution is illegal, this Court may review the sentence despite the absence of a contemporaneous objection. ¶12 In Lenihan, we recognized a narrow exception to the contemporaneous objection rule and held that this Court may review a criminal sentence that is alleged to be illegal or 2 We note that while the PSI did not include a statement of L.S.’s pecunia 2013She also acknowledges that she failed to object to the restitution order at the time of sentencing but, relying on our decision in State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 343 , 602 P.2d 997, 1000 (1979), she asserts that because her sentence for restitution is illegal, this Court may review the sentence despite the absence of a contemporaneous objection. ¶12 In Lenihan, we recognized a narrow exception to the contemporaneous objection rule and held that this Court may review a criminal sentence that is alleged to be illegal or 2 We note that while the PSI did not include a statement of L.S.’s pecunia | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2004See Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . ¶47 Lastly, DeWitt claims that the District Court erred in failing to conduct a Finley hearing when DeWitt requested new counsel at the sentencing hearing. 2004See Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . ¶47 Lastly, DeWitt claims that the District Court erred in failing to conduct a Finley hearing when DeWitt requested new counsel at the sentencing hearing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Siglergreen2 sentences1999Finley, 236 Mont. at 137, 915 P.2d at 215 . ¶15 Next, Pizzichiello must show that our failing to review the claimed error at issue would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial proceedings or compromise the integrity of the judicial process. 1999Finley, 236 Mont. at 137, 915 P.2d at 215 . ¶15 Next, Pizzichiello must show that our failing to review the claimed error at issue would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial proceedings or compromise the integrity of the judicial process. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Finley
green
2 sentences2005Indeed, the Finley test for plain error review is that such review should be exercised when failing to do so "may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the 38 trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process." Finley, 276 Mont. at 137 , 915 P.2d at 215 . 2005Indeed, the Finley test for plain error review is that such review should be exercised when failing to do so "may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the 38 trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process." Finley, 276 Mont. at 137 , 915 P.2d at 215 . | 4 | 1999–2005 |
State v. Wagner
green
2 sentences2010It is, however, a means by which the Court may analyze whether the second Finley criterion has been satisfied. ¶16 For example, in State v. Wagner, 2009 MT 256 , 352 Mont. 1 , 215 P.3d 20 , the defendant urged the Court to apply the common law plain error doctrine after the state prosecutor asked a series of questions creating an inference of guilt in the minds of jurors. 2010It is, however, a means by which the Court may analyze whether the second Finley criterion has been satisfied. ¶16 For example, in State v. Wagner, 2009 MT 256 , 352 Mont. 1 , 215 P.3d 20 , the defendant urged the Court to apply the common law plain error doctrine after the state prosecutor asked a series of questions creating an inference of guilt in the minds of jurors. | 3 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Reynolds
neutral
2 sentences2017We take an integrated approach and must evaluate the “surrounding circumstances” to determine “the accused’s various responses to the delays.” Ariegwe , ¶ 85. “[CJonduct demonstrating a desire to avoid trial weighs against the accused in the overall balancing.” Ariegwe , ¶ 85; State v. Reynolds, 2017 MT 25, ¶ 29 , 386 Mont. 267 , 389 P.3d 243 (under factor three, defendant “deliberately avoided apprehension and indicated no interest at all in having a speedy trial”). ¶15 Stewart twice waived his right to a speedy trial, filed a status report requesting that a jury not be assembled, gave assura 2017We take an integrated approach and must evaluate the “surrounding circumstances” to determine “the accused’s various responses to the delays.” Ariegwe , ¶ 85. “[CJonduct demonstrating a desire to avoid trial weighs against the accused in the overall balancing.” Ariegwe , ¶ 85; State v. Reynolds, 2017 MT 25, ¶ 29 , 386 Mont. 267 , 389 P.3d 243 (under factor three, defendant “deliberately avoided apprehension and indicated no interest at all in having a speedy trial”). ¶15 Stewart twice waived his right to a speedy trial, filed a status report requesting that a jury not be assembled, gave assura | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Clary
green
2 sentences2013Lundberg did not dispute this 4 statement nor did she file, at any time prior to the change of plea or sentencing hearings, a motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, requesting another attorney, or asking to be allowed to proceed as a self-represented litigant. ¶10 In State v. Clary, 2012 MT 26, ¶ 27 , 364 Mont. 53 , 270 P.3d 88 , we stated that a defendant “cannot predicate error on the District Court’s failure to examine the substance of a motion he never filed.” Based upon Lundberg’s failure to file a motion and her withdrawal of any previously-expressed oral concern about counse 2013Lundberg did not dispute this 4 statement nor did she file, at any time prior to the change of plea or sentencing hearings, a motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, requesting another attorney, or asking to be allowed to proceed as a self-represented litigant. ¶10 In State v. Clary, 2012 MT 26, ¶ 27 , 364 Mont. 53 , 270 P.3d 88 , we stated that a defendant “cannot predicate error on the District Court’s failure to examine the substance of a motion he never filed.” Based upon Lundberg’s failure to file a motion and her withdrawal of any previously-expressed oral concern about counse | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Gallagher
green
2 sentences2005The court deemed the proceeding a Stage I Finley hearing, pursuant to the process set forth in State v. Finley (1996), 276 Mont. 126 , 915 P.2d 208 (overruled on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215, ¶ 21 , 19 P.3d 817, ¶ 21 ). ¶11 In response to the District Court’s queries, Warclub explained that he did not believe his attorneys came to see him often enough while he was in jail, and he felt that his counsel was “against” him. 2005The court deemed the proceeding a Stage I Finley hearing, pursuant to the process set forth in State v. Finley (1996), 276 Mont. 126 , 915 P.2d 208 (overruled on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215, ¶ 21 , 19 P.3d 817, ¶ 21 ). ¶11 In response to the District Court’s queries, Warclub explained that he did not believe his attorneys came to see him often enough while he was in jail, and he felt that his counsel was “against” him. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.