50 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2026 13 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 sentences2023Under a sentence-specific exception set forth in State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 342-43 , 602 P.2d 997, 999-1000 (1979), “unpreserved assertions of error that a particular sentence or sentencing condition was either facially illegal (i.e., of a type or character not authorized by statute or otherwise in excess of the statutorily authorized range or limit for that type of sentence or condition), or facially legal but authorized by a facially unconstitutional statute, are subject to review for the first time on appeal,” the so-called Lenihan rule. 2023Under a sentence-specific exception set forth in State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 342-43 , 602 P.2d 997, 999-1000 (1979), “unpreserved assertions of error that a particular sentence or sentencing condition was either facially illegal (i.e., of a type or character not authorized by statute or otherwise in excess of the statutorily authorized range or limit for that type of sentence or condition), or facially legal but authorized by a facially unconstitutional statute, are subject to review for the first time on appeal,” the so-called Lenihan rule. | 12 | 20 |
State v. Swobodagreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Youpee, 2018 MT 102, ¶ 11 , 391 Mont. 246 , 416 P.3d 1050 (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection that court “fail[ed] 8 to state the reason for” facially legal denial of discretionary street credit as required by § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2015)) (internal citations omitted); State v. Swoboda, 276 Mont. 479, 481-82 , 918 P.2d 296, 298 (1996) (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection to facially legal sentence that court failed to consider sentencing alternatives as required by statute). 2023See, e.g., State v. Youpee, 2018 MT 102, ¶ 11 , 391 Mont. 246 , 416 P.3d 1050 (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection that court “fail[ed] 8 to state the reason for” facially legal denial of discretionary street credit as required by § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2015)) (internal citations omitted); State v. Swoboda, 276 Mont. 479, 481-82 , 918 P.2d 296, 298 (1996) (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection to facially legal sentence that court failed to consider sentencing alternatives as required by statute). | 10 | 12 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Coleman, ¶¶ 7-11 (Lenihan not applicable to as-applied constitutional challenge to no-cell phone/internet access sex offense condition); Parkhill, ¶ 16; (Lenihan not applicable to as-applied constitutional challenge to no-contact PFMA condition); State v. Johnson, 2011 MT 286, ¶ 14 , 362 Mont. 473 , 265 P.3d 638 (Lenihan not applicable to facially legal restitution obligation challenged due to insufficient documentation); Strong, ¶¶ 7-16 (Lenihan not applicable to as-applied constitutional challenge); Ashby, ¶ 22 (distinguishing between illegal sentences or conditions from those mer 2020Although Ingram invokes State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 343 , 602 P.2d 997, 1000 (1979), where we permitted appellate review of sentences not properly objected to at the trial level “if it is alleged that such sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory mandates,” we have since clarified that a district court’s failure to abide by a statutory requirement raises an “objectionable sentence, 11 not necessarily an illegal one that would invoke the Lenihan exception.” State v. Kotwicki, 2007 MT 17, ¶ 13 , 335 Mont. 344 , 151 P.3d 892 (citing State v. Nelson, 274 Mont. 11, 20 , 906 P.2d 663, 668 (1995 | 9 | 11 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Coleman, ¶¶ 7-11 (Lenihan not applicable to as-applied constitutional challenge to no-cell phone/internet access sex offense condition); Parkhill, ¶ 16; (Lenihan not applicable to as-applied constitutional challenge to no-contact PFMA condition); State v. Johnson, 2011 MT 286, ¶ 14 , 362 Mont. 473 , 265 P.3d 638 (Lenihan not applicable to facially legal restitution obligation challenged due to insufficient documentation); Strong, ¶¶ 7-16 (Lenihan not applicable to as-applied constitutional challenge); Ashby, ¶ 22 (distinguishing between illegal sentences or conditions from those mer 2020Although Ingram invokes State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 343 , 602 P.2d 997, 1000 (1979), where we permitted appellate review of sentences not properly objected to at the trial level “if it is alleged that such sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory mandates,” we have since clarified that a district court’s failure to abide by a statutory requirement raises an “objectionable sentence, 11 not necessarily an illegal one that would invoke the Lenihan exception.” State v. Kotwicki, 2007 MT 17, ¶ 13 , 335 Mont. 344 , 151 P.3d 892 (citing State v. Nelson, 274 Mont. 11, 20 , 906 P.2d 663, 668 (1995 | 2 | 11 |
State v. Youpeegreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Youpee, 2018 MT 102, ¶ 11 , 391 Mont. 246 , 416 P.3d 1050 (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection that court “fail[ed] 8 to state the reason for” facially legal denial of discretionary street credit as required by § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2015)) (internal citations omitted); State v. Swoboda, 276 Mont. 479, 481-82 , 918 P.2d 296, 298 (1996) (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection to facially legal sentence that court failed to consider sentencing alternatives as required by statute). 2023See, e.g., State v. Youpee, 2018 MT 102, ¶ 11 , 391 Mont. 246 , 416 P.3d 1050 (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection that court “fail[ed] 8 to state the reason for” facially legal denial of discretionary street credit as required by § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2015)) (internal citations omitted); State v. Swoboda, 276 Mont. 479, 481-82 , 918 P.2d 296, 298 (1996) (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection to facially legal sentence that court failed to consider sentencing alternatives as required by statute). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Barrowsgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Barrows, 2018 MT 204, ¶ 8 , 392 Mont. 358 , 424 P.3d 612 ; State v. Lawrence, 2016 MT 346, ¶ 9 , 386 Mont. 86 , 385 P.3d 968 . 2021See State v. Barrows, 2018 MT 204, ¶ 8 , 392 Mont. 358 , 424 P.3d 612 ; State v. Lawrence, 2016 MT 346, ¶ 9 , 386 Mont. 86 , 385 P.3d 968 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Farrellgreen2 sentences2013This Court will hear Haldane’s constitutional challenge to his sentence under the Lenihan exception. ¶40 A criminal defendant’s sentence must comport with the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution and Article II, Section 17 of the Montana Constitution. “[A] criminal defendant’s right to due process requires that indigency or poverty not be used as the touchstone for imposing the maximum allowable punishment.” State v. Pritchett, 2000 MT 261, ¶ 28 , 302 Mont. 1 , 11 P.3d 539 ; State v. Farrell, 207 Mont. 483, 499 , 676 P.2d 168, 177 (1984) (internal 2013This Court will hear Haldane’s constitutional challenge to his sentence under the Lenihan exception. ¶40 A criminal defendant’s sentence must comport with the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution and Article II, Section 17 of the Montana Constitution. “[A] criminal defendant’s right to due process requires that indigency or poverty not be used as the touchstone for imposing the maximum allowable punishment.” State v. Pritchett, 2000 MT 261, ¶ 28 , 302 Mont. 1 , 11 P.3d 539 ; State v. Farrell, 207 Mont. 483, 499 , 676 P.2d 168, 177 (1984) (internal | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kotwickigreen2 sentences2025As we noted in State v. Kotwicki, 2007 MT 17, ¶ 13 , 335 Mont. 344 , 151 P.3d 892 , a defendant generally needs only to allege the court imposed an illegal sentence to invoke the Lenihan rule, but we have consistently held that a sentence is not illegal if it falls within statutory parameters, and we have also determined that a sentencing court’s failure to abide by a statutory requirement rises to an objectionable sentence, not necessarily an illegal one which would invoke the Lenihan exception. 2025As we noted in State v. Kotwicki, 2007 MT 17, ¶ 13 , 335 Mont. 344 , 151 P.3d 892 , a defendant generally needs only to allege the court imposed an illegal sentence to invoke the Lenihan rule, but we have consistently held that a sentence is not illegal if it falls within statutory parameters, and we have also determined that a sentencing court’s failure to abide by a statutory requirement rises to an objectionable sentence, not necessarily an illegal one which would invoke the Lenihan exception. | 1 | 13 |
State v. Garrymoregreen2 sentences2021State v. Coleman, 2018 MT 290, ¶¶ 7-11 , 393 Mont. 375 , 431 P.3d 26 (analyzing general objection/waiver rule, Lenihan exception, and inapplicability of Lenihan exception to unpreserved as-applied constitutional sentencing challenges); Parkhill, ¶ 16 (Lenihan exception inapplicable to unpreserved as-applied constitutional challenge to no-contact condition of probation on PFMA sentence); State v. Strong, 2009 MT 65, ¶¶ 7-16 , 349 Mont. 417 , 203 P.3d 848 (applying Lenihan exception to facial equal protection challenge of sentencing statute but not as-applied challenge); Kotwicki, ¶¶ 6-22 6 (Len 2021State v. Coleman, 2018 MT 290, ¶¶ 7-11 , 393 Mont. 375 , 431 P.3d 26 (analyzing general objection/waiver rule, Lenihan exception, and inapplicability of Lenihan exception to unpreserved as-applied constitutional sentencing challenges); Parkhill, ¶ 16 (Lenihan exception inapplicable to unpreserved as-applied constitutional challenge to no-contact condition of probation on PFMA sentence); State v. Strong, 2009 MT 65, ¶¶ 7-16 , 349 Mont. 417 , 203 P.3d 848 (applying Lenihan exception to facial equal protection challenge of sentencing statute but not as-applied challenge); Kotwicki, ¶¶ 6-22 6 (Len | 1 | 9 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2022See also, e.g., State v. Youpee, 2018 MT 102, ¶ 11 , 391 Mont. 246 , 416 P.3d 1050 (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection that court “fail[ed] to state [] reason for” facially legal denial of discretionary street credit as required by § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2015)— internal citations omitted); State v. Johnson, 2011 MT 286 , ¶¶ 10 & 14, 362 Mont. 473 , 265 P.3d 638 (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection to facially legal 6 restitution imposition that the amount imposed was not supported by adequate proof/documentation in presentence investigation report) 2022See also, e.g., State v. Youpee, 2018 MT 102, ¶ 11 , 391 Mont. 246 , 416 P.3d 1050 (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection that court “fail[ed] to state [] reason for” facially legal denial of discretionary street credit as required by § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2015)— internal citations omitted); State v. Johnson, 2011 MT 286 , ¶¶ 10 & 14, 362 Mont. 473 , 265 P.3d 638 (Lenihan exception not applicable to unpreserved objection to facially legal 6 restitution imposition that the amount imposed was not supported by adequate proof/documentation in presentence investigation report) | 1 | 5 |
State v. Micklongreen2 sentences2006The State has also suggested, in previous cases, that we “cabin” the Lenihan exception, Brief of Respondent at 9, State v. Ironmaker, 2005 MT 226N , 328 Mont. 522 (Table), 120 P.3d 811 (Table) (No. 04-610), or simply overrule it, Brief of Respondent at 8, State v. Micklon, 2003 MT 45 , 314 Mont. 291 , 65 P.3d 559 (No. 02-415) (“Montana is hopeful that this Court will someday reject the rationale underlying Lenihan , at least to the extent it permits convicted persons to remain silent with respect to the conditions a sentencing court deems necessary to suspend a given sentence”). 2006The State has also suggested, in previous cases, that we “cabin” the Lenihan exception, Brief of Respondent at 9, State v. Ironmaker, 2005 MT 226N , 328 Mont. 522 (Table), 120 P.3d 811 (Table) (No. 04-610), or simply overrule it, Brief of Respondent at 8, State v. Micklon, 2003 MT 45 , 314 Mont. 291 , 65 P.3d 559 (No. 02-415) (“Montana is hopeful that this Court will someday reject the rationale underlying Lenihan , at least to the extent it permits convicted persons to remain silent with respect to the conditions a sentencing court deems necessary to suspend a given sentence”). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Beaudetgreen2 sentences2021Heafner, ¶¶ 8 and 11-13.2 See also State v. Lehrkamp, 2017 MT 203, ¶¶ 37-41 , 388 Mont. 295 , 400 P.3d 697 (reversing and remanding for an amended judgment striking parole conditions not included in the oral pronouncement of judgment). 1 But see State v. Beaudet, 2014 MT 152, ¶ 17 , 375 Mont. 295 , 326 P.3d 1101 (distinguishing between illegal and merely objectionable sentences and sentencing provisions for purposes of contemporaneous object/waiver rule and procedural Lenihan rule). 2021Heafner, ¶¶ 8 and 11-13.2 See also State v. Lehrkamp, 2017 MT 203, ¶¶ 37-41 , 388 Mont. 295 , 400 P.3d 697 (reversing and remanding for an amended judgment striking parole conditions not included in the oral pronouncement of judgment). 1 But see State v. Beaudet, 2014 MT 152, ¶ 17 , 375 Mont. 295 , 326 P.3d 1101 (distinguishing between illegal and merely objectionable sentences and sentencing provisions for purposes of contemporaneous object/waiver rule and procedural Lenihan rule). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dustin Robertsongreen2 sentences2020Coleman, ¶ 12; State v. Robertson, 2015 MT 266, ¶¶ 12-13 , 381 Mont. 75 , 364 P.3d 580 ; State v. Mainwaring, 2007 MT 14, ¶ 20 , 335 Mont. 322 , 151 P.3d 53 . 2020Coleman, ¶ 12; State v. Robertson, 2015 MT 266, ¶¶ 12-13 , 381 Mont. 75 , 364 P.3d 580 ; State v. Mainwaring, 2007 MT 14, ¶ 20 , 335 Mont. 322 , 151 P.3d 53 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Eatongreen2 sentences2007Micklon , ¶ 10. ¶15 We narrowed the definition of “active acquiescence” for the purposes of invoking the Lenihan rule in State v. Eaton, 2004 MT 283 , 323 Mont. 287 , 99 P.3d 661 . 2007Micklon , ¶ 10. ¶15 We narrowed the definition of “active acquiescence” for the purposes of invoking the Lenihan rule in State v. Eaton, 2004 MT 283 , 323 Mont. 287 , 99 P.3d 661 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bristergreen2 sentences2006We recognize that terms such as " Lenihan jurisdiction" are commonly used to refer generally to a body of law or jurisprudence, but the better practice is to avoid such uses so that clarity of the actual meaning of "jurisdiction" can be promoted. [2] See State v. Brister , 2002 MT 13, ¶ 17 , 308 Mont. 154, ¶ 17 , 41 P.3d 314, ¶ 17 , which distinguished these two doctrines. [3] We have decided a number of cases addressing or touching on the meaning of an "illegal" sentence for purposes of the Lenihan rule: see, for example , State v. Nelson , 274 Mont. 11 , 906 P.2d 663 (1995); State v. Lafley 2006We recognize that terms such as " Lenihan jurisdiction" are commonly used to refer generally to a body of law or jurisprudence, but the better practice is to avoid such uses so that clarity of the actual meaning of "jurisdiction" can be promoted. [2] See State v. Brister , 2002 MT 13, ¶ 17 , 308 Mont. 154, ¶ 17 , 41 P.3d 314, ¶ 17 , which distinguished these two doctrines. [3] We have decided a number of cases addressing or touching on the meaning of an "illegal" sentence for purposes of the Lenihan rule: see, for example , State v. Nelson , 274 Mont. 11 , 906 P.2d 663 (1995); State v. Lafley | 1 | 2 |
In re K.J.R.green2 sentences2023See In re K.J.R., 2017 MT 45, ¶ 16 , 386 Mont. 381 , 391 P.3d 71 (determining the case qualified for review on appeal despite no objection in the lower court when the youth claimed the Youth Court unlawfully revoked his prior disposition and, thus, lacked authority to commit him to Pine Hills). 2023See In re K.J.R., 2017 MT 45, ¶ 16 , 386 Mont. 381 , 391 P.3d 71 (determining the case qualified for review on appeal despite no objection in the lower court when the youth claimed the Youth Court unlawfully revoked his prior disposition and, thus, lacked authority to commit him to Pine Hills). | 1 | 1 |
State v. K.J.R.green2 sentences2023See In re K.J.R., 2017 MT 45, ¶ 16 , 386 Mont. 381 , 391 P.3d 71 (determining the case qualified for review on appeal despite no objection in the lower court when the youth claimed the Youth Court unlawfully revoked his prior disposition and, thus, lacked authority to commit him to Pine Hills). 2023See In re K.J.R., 2017 MT 45, ¶ 16 , 386 Mont. 381 , 391 P.3d 71 (determining the case qualified for review on appeal despite no objection in the lower court when the youth claimed the Youth Court unlawfully revoked his prior disposition and, thus, lacked authority to commit him to Pine Hills). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. MacDonaldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ruizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hicksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Braughtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gouletgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Muhammadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Krollgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Vernesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Avery v. Flathead Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Honeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Stonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Yonkers v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Cottongreen | 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. McLeod
green
2 sentences2010We reached the same conclusion on a claim under the same statute in Swoboda, 276 Mont. at 482 , 918 P.2d at 298 . ¶38 In Kotwicki , we relied upon Nelson and Swoboda to reject a broader application of the Lenihan rule we had approved, without analysis, in State v. McLeod, 2002 MT 348 , 313 Mont. 358 , 61 P.3d 126 . 2010We reached the same conclusion on a claim under the same statute in Swoboda, 276 Mont. at 482 , 918 P.2d at 298 . ¶38 In Kotwicki , we relied upon Nelson and Swoboda to reject a broader application of the Lenihan rule we had approved, without analysis, in State v. McLeod, 2002 MT 348 , 313 Mont. 358 , 61 P.3d 126 . | 5 | 2006–2020 |
State v. Strong
green
2 sentences2021State v. Coleman, 2018 MT 290, ¶¶ 7-11 , 393 Mont. 375 , 431 P.3d 26 (analyzing general objection/waiver rule, Lenihan exception, and inapplicability of Lenihan exception to unpreserved as-applied constitutional sentencing challenges); Parkhill, ¶ 16 (Lenihan exception inapplicable to unpreserved as-applied constitutional challenge to no-contact condition of probation on PFMA sentence); State v. Strong, 2009 MT 65, ¶¶ 7-16 , 349 Mont. 417 , 203 P.3d 848 (applying Lenihan exception to facial equal protection challenge of sentencing statute but not as-applied challenge); Kotwicki, ¶¶ 6-22 6 (Len 2021State v. Coleman, 2018 MT 290, ¶¶ 7-11 , 393 Mont. 375 , 431 P.3d 26 (analyzing general objection/waiver rule, Lenihan exception, and inapplicability of Lenihan exception to unpreserved as-applied constitutional sentencing challenges); Parkhill, ¶ 16 (Lenihan exception inapplicable to unpreserved as-applied constitutional challenge to no-contact condition of probation on PFMA sentence); State v. Strong, 2009 MT 65, ¶¶ 7-16 , 349 Mont. 417 , 203 P.3d 848 (applying Lenihan exception to facial equal protection challenge of sentencing statute but not as-applied challenge); Kotwicki, ¶¶ 6-22 6 (Len | 3 | 2016–2021 |
State v. M. Tippets
neutral
2 sentences2023Put another way, “a sentencing court’s failure to abide by a statutory requirement rises to an objectionable sentence, not necessarily an illegal one that would invoke the Lenihan exception.” Kotwicki, ¶ 13. ¶16 We recently held in State v. Tippets, 2022 MT 81, ¶¶ 12-14 , 408 Mont. 249 , 509 P.3d 1 , that an argument that the “District Court did not follow the statutory procedure for compliance violations” under the MIIG statute is, for purposes of Lenihan, an assertion of an “objectionable,” rather than “illegal,” sentence and therefore not subject to unpreserved review.4 Sullivan’s unpreserv 2023Put another way, “a sentencing court’s failure to abide by a statutory requirement rises to an objectionable sentence, not necessarily an illegal one that would invoke the Lenihan exception.” Kotwicki, ¶ 13. ¶16 We recently held in State v. Tippets, 2022 MT 81, ¶¶ 12-14 , 408 Mont. 249 , 509 P.3d 1 , that an argument that the “District Court did not follow the statutory procedure for compliance violations” under the MIIG statute is, for purposes of Lenihan, an assertion of an “objectionable,” rather than “illegal,” sentence and therefore not subject to unpreserved review.4 Sullivan’s unpreserv | 2 | 2023–2024 |
State v. K. Old Bull
neutral
2 sentences2022A sentence is illegal “if the sentencing court lacked statutory authority to impose it, if the condition falls outside the parameters of the applicable sentencing statutes, or if the court did not adhere to the affirmative mandates of the applicable sentencing statutes.” State v. Bull, 2017 MT 247 , ¶ 11, 389 Mont. 56 , 403 P.3d 670 (citation omitted). “[W]hen a district court, if provided the opportunity to consider the error now asserted on appeal, could nevertheless have imposed the same sentence, the illegality requirement of the Lenihan exception has not been met.” Bull, ¶ 11. ¶16 At the 2022A sentence is illegal “if the sentencing court lacked statutory authority to impose it, if the condition falls outside the parameters of the applicable sentencing statutes, or if the court did not adhere to the affirmative mandates of the applicable sentencing statutes.” State v. Bull, 2017 MT 247 , ¶ 11, 389 Mont. 56 , 403 P.3d 670 (citation omitted). “[W]hen a district court, if provided the opportunity to consider the error now asserted on appeal, could nevertheless have imposed the same sentence, the illegality requirement of the Lenihan exception has not been met.” Bull, ¶ 11. ¶16 At the | 2 | 2017–2022 |
State v. W. Lawrence
green
2 sentences2021See State v. Barrows, 2018 MT 204, ¶ 8 , 392 Mont. 358 , 424 P.3d 612 ; State v. Lawrence, 2016 MT 346, ¶ 9 , 386 Mont. 86 , 385 P.3d 968 . 2021See State v. Barrows, 2018 MT 204, ¶ 8 , 392 Mont. 358 , 424 P.3d 612 ; State v. Lawrence, 2016 MT 346, ¶ 9 , 386 Mont. 86 , 385 P.3d 968 . | 2 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Ellis
green
2 sentences2016The Lenihan rule allows “an appellate court to review any sentence imposed in a criminal case, if it is alleged that such sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory mandates, even if no objection is made at the time of sentencing.” Lenihan, 184 Mont. at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 . ¶12 Watts cites State v. Ellis, 2007 MT 210 , 339 Mont. 14 , 167 P.3d 896 and State v. Strong, 2009 MT 65 , 349 Mont. 417 , 203 P.3d 848 , in support of his argument. 2016The Lenihan rule allows “an appellate court to review any sentence imposed in a criminal case, if it is alleged that such sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory mandates, even if no objection is made at the time of sentencing.” Lenihan, 184 Mont. at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 . ¶12 Watts cites State v. Ellis, 2007 MT 210 , 339 Mont. 14 , 167 P.3d 896 and State v. Strong, 2009 MT 65 , 349 Mont. 417 , 203 P.3d 848 , in support of his argument. | 2 | 2009–2016 |
State v. Walker
green
2 sentences2008Park attempts to distinguish our decision in State v. Walker, 2007 MT 205, ¶ 18 , 338 Mont. 529, ¶ 18 , 167 P.3d 879, ¶ 18 , where we refused to apply the Lenihan rule, on the basis that she did not “actively acquiesce” to the original sentence or participate in the imposition of a condition prohibiting her use of alcohol. ¶19 We consistently have held that a sentence is not illegal if it falls within statutory parameters. 2008Park attempts to distinguish our decision in State v. Walker, 2007 MT 205, ¶ 18 , 338 Mont. 529, ¶ 18 , 167 P.3d 879, ¶ 18 , where we refused to apply the Lenihan rule, on the basis that she did not “actively acquiesce” to the original sentence or participate in the imposition of a condition prohibiting her use of alcohol. ¶19 We consistently have held that a sentence is not illegal if it falls within statutory parameters. | 2 | 2008–2013 |
Pena v. State
green
2 sentences2010Pena v. State, 2004 MT 293, ¶ 24 , 323 Mont. 347 , 100 P.3d 154 (A district court “has no power to impose a sentence in the absence of specific statutory authority,” its authority to impose sentences in criminal cases “is defined and constrained by statute,” and a sentence that exceeds statutory authority or parameters is, therefore, “illegal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), overruled on other grounds,Davis v. State, 2008 MT 226, ¶ 23 , 344 Mont. 300 , 187 P.3d 654 . ¶56 The court’s sentence being an illegal sentence, the Lenihan exception applies and we may review the sentence even in t 2010Pena v. State, 2004 MT 293, ¶ 24 , 323 Mont. 347 , 100 P.3d 154 (A district court “has no power to impose a sentence in the absence of specific statutory authority,” its authority to impose sentences in criminal cases “is defined and constrained by statute,” and a sentence that exceeds statutory authority or parameters is, therefore, “illegal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), overruled on other grounds,Davis v. State, 2008 MT 226, ¶ 23 , 344 Mont. 300 , 187 P.3d 654 . ¶56 The court’s sentence being an illegal sentence, the Lenihan exception applies and we may review the sentence even in t | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences2010Pena v. State, 2004 MT 293, ¶ 24 , 323 Mont. 347 , 100 P.3d 154 (A district court “has no power to impose a sentence in the absence of specific statutory authority,” its authority to impose sentences in criminal cases “is defined and constrained by statute,” and a sentence that exceeds statutory authority or parameters is, therefore, “illegal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), overruled on other grounds,Davis v. State, 2008 MT 226, ¶ 23 , 344 Mont. 300 , 187 P.3d 654 . ¶56 The court’s sentence being an illegal sentence, the Lenihan exception applies and we may review the sentence even in t 2010Pena v. State, 2004 MT 293, ¶ 24 , 323 Mont. 347 , 100 P.3d 154 (A district court “has no power to impose a sentence in the absence of specific statutory authority,” its authority to impose sentences in criminal cases “is defined and constrained by statute,” and a sentence that exceeds statutory authority or parameters is, therefore, “illegal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), overruled on other grounds,Davis v. State, 2008 MT 226, ¶ 23 , 344 Mont. 300 , 187 P.3d 654 . ¶56 The court’s sentence being an illegal sentence, the Lenihan exception applies and we may review the sentence even in t | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. S. Pajnich
neutral
2 sentences2026In State v. Pajnich, 2025 MT 101, ¶ 11 , 422 Mont. 12 , 568 P.3d 562 , we held that the defendant was not entitled to elapsed time because she failed to argue for additional elapsed time and specifically agreed to the amount of elapsed time to which she was due in her plea agreement. 2026In State v. Pajnich, 2025 MT 101, ¶ 11 , 422 Mont. 12 , 568 P.3d 562 , we held that the defendant was not entitled to elapsed time because she failed to argue for additional elapsed time and specifically agreed to the amount of elapsed time to which she was due in her plea agreement. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. E. Souther
neutral
2 sentences2024The Court cites to State v. Souther, 2022 MT 203 , 410 Mont. 330 , 519 P.3d 1 , for the standard that we review sentences for legality, and that case also 13 explains the Lenihan doctrine for appellate review of claimed illegal sentences. 2024The Court cites to State v. Souther, 2022 MT 203 , 410 Mont. 330 , 519 P.3d 1 , for the standard that we review sentences for legality, and that case also 13 explains the Lenihan doctrine for appellate review of claimed illegal sentences. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. S. Lehrkamp green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Nelson green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2021State v. Marshall, 2007 MT 218, ¶ 20 , 339 Mont. 50 , 170 P.3d 923 . 2021State v. Marshall, 2007 MT 218, ¶ 20 , 339 Mont. 50 , 170 P.3d 923 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Coleman neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. D. Ingram
green
2 sentences2021Kotwicki, ¶ 13; State v. Ingram, 2020 MT 327, ¶ 18 , 402 Mont. 374 , 478 P.3d 799 . ¶5 Ruff urges this Court to overrule Stiles and find that a sentence condition that lacks the appropriate nexus to the offense or offender amounts to an illegal sentence subject to the Lenihan exception.1 The State argues that this Court’s decisions prior to Stiles do not hold that unpreserved nexus objections are reviewable, even though we have stated that to be legal, “a condition of a sentence must” have a nexus to the conviction. 2021Kotwicki, ¶ 13; State v. Ingram, 2020 MT 327, ¶ 18 , 402 Mont. 374 , 478 P.3d 799 . ¶5 Ruff urges this Court to overrule Stiles and find that a sentence condition that lacks the appropriate nexus to the offense or offender amounts to an illegal sentence subject to the Lenihan exception.1 The State argues that this Court’s decisions prior to Stiles do not hold that unpreserved nexus objections are reviewable, even though we have stated that to be legal, “a condition of a sentence must” have a nexus to the conviction. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Mainwaring green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Erickson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Essig green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Phillips green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. G. Makarchuk green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Pritchett green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Park green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Adams v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Allen green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Morales green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| City of Billings v. Smith green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Staat green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Sylvester Hameline green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Ashby green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Montoya green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Legg green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Apprendi v. New Jersey green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Kleinrichert v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Lafley green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.