Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 41. MINORS · CHAPTER 5. YOUTH COURT ACT · Part 25. Criminally Convicted Youth Act
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 41-5-2501 (2026)

Short Title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 41
  3. CHAPTER 5
  4. Part 25
  5. 41-5-2501 Short title

TITLE 41. MINORS

CHAPTER 5. YOUTH COURT ACT

Part 25. Criminally Convicted Youth Act

Short Title

41-5-2501. Short title. This part may be cited as the "Criminally Convicted Youth Act".

History: En. Sec. 17, Ch. 532, L. 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: State v. R. Talksabout, 2017 MT 79 (Mont. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. R. Talksabout, 2017 MT 79 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 4× “4 As a matter of law, he was potentially a “criminally convicted youth” under § 41-5-2501, MCA, et seq. (Criminally Convicted Youth Act).”
State v. Mainwaring, 2007 MT 14 (Mont. 2007). “, and Criminally Convicted Youth Act, §§ 41-5-2501, et seq. We start by setting forth the pertinent provisions of these statutes, beginning with the definition of a PFO.”
State v. J. Knowles, 2025 MT 107 (Mont. 2025). · cites it 2× “The court’s judgment did not reflect that Knowles was a criminally convicted youth under the Criminally Convicted Youth Act (CCYA), § 41-5-2501, MCA, et seq., or contain any of the relevant provisions applicable to Knowles as a criminally convicted youth under the Act.”
State v. C. Stone (Mont. 2021). “The District Court considered Stone's progress while in prison and the victim's opposition to a sentence modification, declining to modify the sentence previously imposed.”
State v. I. Pehringer, 2026 MT 114 (Mont. 2026). “DC 20-44 and DC 21-09 failed to reflect that Pehringer was a criminally convicted youth under the CCYA, § 41-5-2501, MCA, et seq., or contain any of the relevant provisions applicable to Pehringer as a criminally convicted youth under the Act.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.