Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 16. TRIAL · Part 1. General Provisions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-130 (2026)

Pretrial Diversion

✓ 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 46
  3. CHAPTER 16
  4. Part 1
  5. 46-16-130 Pretrial diversion

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 16. TRIAL

Part 1. General Provisions

Pretrial Diversion

46-16-130. Pretrial diversion. (1) (a) Prior to the filing of a charge, the prosecutor and a defendant who has counsel or who has voluntarily waived counsel may agree to the deferral of a prosecution for a specified period of time based on one or more of the following conditions:

(i) that the defendant may not commit any offense;

(ii) that the defendant may not engage in specified activities, conduct, and associations bearing a relationship to the conduct upon which the charge against the defendant is based;

(iii) that the defendant shall participate in a supervised rehabilitation program, which may include treatment, counseling, training, or education;

(iv) that the defendant shall make restitution in a specified manner for harm or loss caused by the offense; or

(v) any other reasonable conditions.

(b) The agreement must be in writing, must be signed by the parties, and must state that the defendant waives the right to speedy trial for the period of deferral. The agreement may include stipulations concerning the admissibility of evidence, specified testimony, or dispositions if the deferral of the prosecution is terminated and there is a trial on the charge.

(c) The prosecution must be deferred for the period specified in the agreement unless there has been a violation of its terms.

(d) The agreement must be terminated and the prosecution automatically dismissed with prejudice upon expiration and compliance with the terms of the agreement.

(2) A condition of pretrial diversion may be for the court to refer a defendant for evaluation to determine the appropriateness of proceedings pursuant to Title 53, chapter 21.

(3) Except as provided in 46-1-1104 and 46-1-1204, after a charge has been filed, a deferral of prosecution may be entered into only after the prosecutor provides notice to the court.

(4) A prosecution for a violation of 61-8-1002 or aggravated driving under the influence as defined in 61-8-1001 may not be deferred.

History: En. Sec. 129, Ch. 800, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 38, Ch. 262, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 447, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 342, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 153, L. 2013; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 67, L. 2015; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 424, L. 2015; amd. Sec. 24, Ch. 498, L. 2021.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Obert v. State, 2024 MT 270 (Mont. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Obert v. State, 2024 MT 270 (Mont. 2024). · cites it 18× “¶57 The District Court agreed with the State, finding that Obert failed to cite any precedent supporting her argument that she was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before the State could pursue charges against her with probable cause that she violated the Agreement.”
Svaldi v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge Cnty., 2005 MT 17 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 2× “She argues that since no such agreement was ever signed in this case, the information concerning the possibility of such an agreement that Grayson revealed to the newspaper reporter was not public criminal justice information, and could, therefore, not be disclosed. We agree…”
Dean v. Sanders Cnty., 2009 MT 88 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 2× “Dean and the State ultimately entered into a deferred prosecution agreement pursuant to § 46-16-130, MCA. Dean complied with the agreement and the information was dismissed.”
State v. D. Pein, 2025 MT 258 (Mont. 2025). · cites it 35× “The State then reinstated prosecution on Count IV and Count VIII. Following a jury trial, Pein was convicted of both counts in February 2024.”
Coleman v. Hot Springs, 2020 MT 151N (Mont. 2020). · cites it 6× “” Noting that the statute relied upon by the District Court, § 46-16-130(1)(a)(v), MCA, “does not state that administrative fees may be imposed as a condition of a deferred prosecution agreement,” Coleman contends “[b]y the reasoning employed by the Town, it could impose any fee…”
State v. Dreidlein, 2005 MT 259N (Mont. 2005). · cites it 4× “2 ¶4 On appeal, Dreidlein asserts the jail sentence violates § 46-16-130, MCA, which sets forth procedures for deferred prosecution.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-130(1): 1 case
Obert v. State, 2024 MT 270 (Mont. 2024). “¶57 The District Court agreed with the State, finding that Obert failed to cite any precedent supporting her argument that she was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before the State could pursue charges against her with probable cause that she violated the Agreement.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-130(1)(a): 2 cases
Obert v. State, 2024 MT 270 (Mont. 2024). “¶57 The District Court agreed with the State, finding that Obert failed to cite any precedent supporting her argument that she was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before the State could pursue charges against her with probable cause that she violated the Agreement.”
State v. D. Pein, 2025 MT 258 (Mont. 2025). “The State then reinstated prosecution on Count IV and Count VIII. Following a jury trial, Pein was convicted of both counts in February 2024.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-130(1)(a)(ii): 1 case
Obert v. State, 2024 MT 270 (Mont. 2024). “¶57 The District Court agreed with the State, finding that Obert failed to cite any precedent supporting her argument that she was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before the State could pursue charges against her with probable cause that she violated the Agreement.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-130(1)(a)(v): 2 cases
Coleman v. Hot Springs, 2020 MT 151N (Mont. 2020). “” Noting that the statute relied upon by the District Court, § 46-16-130(1)(a)(v), MCA, “does not state that administrative fees may be imposed as a condition of a deferred prosecution agreement,” Coleman contends “[b]y the reasoning employed by the Town, it could impose any fee…”
State v. D. Pein, 2025 MT 258 (Mont. 2025). “The State then reinstated prosecution on Count IV and Count VIII. Following a jury trial, Pein was convicted of both counts in February 2024.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-130(1)(c): 3 cases
Obert v. State, 2024 MT 270 (Mont. 2024). “¶57 The District Court agreed with the State, finding that Obert failed to cite any precedent supporting her argument that she was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before the State could pursue charges against her with probable cause that she violated the Agreement.”
Coleman v. Hot Springs, 2020 MT 151N (Mont. 2020). “” Noting that the statute relied upon by the District Court, § 46-16-130(1)(a)(v), MCA, “does not state that administrative fees may be imposed as a condition of a deferred prosecution agreement,” Coleman contends “[b]y the reasoning employed by the Town, it could impose any fee…”
State v. D. Pein, 2025 MT 258 (Mont. 2025). “The State then reinstated prosecution on Count IV and Count VIII. Following a jury trial, Pein was convicted of both counts in February 2024.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-130(1)(d): 1 case
Obert v. State, 2024 MT 270 (Mont. 2024). “¶57 The District Court agreed with the State, finding that Obert failed to cite any precedent supporting her argument that she was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before the State could pursue charges against her with probable cause that she violated the Agreement.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-130(3): 1 case
State v. D. Pein, 2025 MT 258 (Mont. 2025). “The State then reinstated prosecution on Count IV and Count VIII. Following a jury trial, Pein was convicted of both counts in February 2024.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-130(l)(b): 1 case
Svaldi v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge Cnty., 2005 MT 17 (Mont. 2005). “She argues that since no such agreement was ever signed in this case, the information concerning the possibility of such an agreement that Grayson revealed to the newspaper reporter was not public criminal justice information, and could, therefore, not be disclosed. We agree…”
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.