Notes of Decisions
Cited in
70
cases (
21 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case:
State v. Ferguson, 2005 MT 343 (Mont. 2005).
State v. Ferguson, 2005 MT 343 (Mont. 2005).
· cites it 18× “Did the District Court err in not granting Ferguson’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to enter a written judgment on the record within the time period established at § 46-18-116(1), MCA? ¶9 7. Did the proceedings contain cumulative error sufficient to warrant a new trial? FACTUAL…”
State v. Kroll, 2004 MT 203 (Mont. 2004).
· cites it 21× “In response, the State submits that Kroll waived his right to complain about the imposition of these conditions because he failed to seek modification of the written judgment within the time provided by § 46-18-116, MCA. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude the District…”
State v. Legg, 2004 MT 26 (Mont. 2004).
· cites it 8× “Although Legg made his motion pursuant to § 46-18-116, MCA, Legg failed to establish, or even discuss, the existence of a conflict between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment.”
State v. Petersen, 2011 MT 22 (Mont. 2011).
· cites it 8× “¶11 Petersen further claims that while § 46-18-116(3), MCA, “empowers district courts to ‘correct a factually erroneous sentence or *204 judgment at any time,’ ” the sentence imposed here was not a factually erroneous sentence capable of correction under this statute. Petersen…”
State v. Damon, 2025 MT 12 (Mont. 2025).
· cites it 12× “¶10 Section 46-18-116, MCA, does not apply to Damon’s situation.”
State v. Megard, 2006 MT 84 (Mont. 2006).
· cites it 8× “¶18 The oral pronouncement from the bench, while confusing, does not conflict with the written judgments.”
State v. Tweedy, 922 P.2d 1134 (Mont. 1996).
· cites it 6× “We note that, in 1991, the legislature enacted § 46-18-116, MCA, which provides as follows: The judgment must set forth the plea, verdict or finding, and the adjudication.”
State v. Lane, 1998 MT 76 (Mont. 1998).
· cites it 4× “¶ 60 In this regard, I note that the last sentence of § 46-18-116, MCA, states that "[t]he judgment must be signed and entered on the record.”
State v. Malloy, 2004 MT 377 (Mont. 2004).
· cites it 4× “This Court has further held, nothing in the 2001 legislative amendments to § 46-18-116, MCA, “supercedes or modifies this Court’s holding in Lane , which established the oral pronouncement of sentence as the legally effective and valid final judgment .”
State v. Liefert, 2002 MT 48 (Mont. 2002).
· cites it 4× “2d 1134 , we were confronted with the question of whether the provisions of § 46-18-116, MCA (dealing with the requirement of a signed judgment), should apply to proceedings in justice court, which were prescribed by the provisions of Chapter 17 of Title 46.”
State v. Lucero, 2004 MT 248 (Mont. 2004).
· cites it 15× “¶ 21 Did the District Court err by imposing conditions in the written judgment that it did not impose at the oral pronouncement of sentence? ¶ 22 Section 46-18-116, MCA, pertains to correction of the written judgment and provides in relevant part: (2) If a written judgment and…”
State v. Duong, 2015 MT 70 (Mont. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Section 46-18-116, MCA, provides that a written judgment must comport with the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-116(1): 4 cases
State v. Ferguson, 2005 MT 343 (Mont. 2005).
“Did the District Court err in not granting Ferguson’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to enter a written judgment on the record within the time period established at § 46-18-116(1), MCA? ¶9 7. Did the proceedings contain cumulative error sufficient to warrant a new trial? FACTUAL…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-116(2): 15 cases
State v. Legg, 2004 MT 26 (Mont. 2004).
“Although Legg made his motion pursuant to § 46-18-116, MCA, Legg failed to establish, or even discuss, the existence of a conflict between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment.”
State v. Malloy, 2004 MT 377 (Mont. 2004).
“This Court has further held, nothing in the 2001 legislative amendments to § 46-18-116, MCA, “supercedes or modifies this Court’s holding in Lane , which established the oral pronouncement of sentence as the legally effective and valid final judgment .”
State v. Lucero, 2004 MT 248 (Mont. 2004).
“¶ 21 Did the District Court err by imposing conditions in the written judgment that it did not impose at the oral pronouncement of sentence? ¶ 22 Section 46-18-116, MCA, pertains to correction of the written judgment and provides in relevant part: (2) If a written judgment and…”
State v. Damon, 2025 MT 12 (Mont. 2025).
“¶10 Section 46-18-116, MCA, does not apply to Damon’s situation.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-116(3): 25 cases
State v. Petersen, 2011 MT 22 (Mont. 2011).
“¶11 Petersen further claims that while § 46-18-116(3), MCA, “empowers district courts to ‘correct a factually erroneous sentence or *204 judgment at any time,’ ” the sentence imposed here was not a factually erroneous sentence capable of correction under this statute. Petersen…”
State v. Damon, 2025 MT 12 (Mont. 2025).
“¶10 Section 46-18-116, MCA, does not apply to Damon’s situation.”
State v. Megard, 2006 MT 84 (Mont. 2006).
“¶18 The oral pronouncement from the bench, while confusing, does not conflict with the written judgments.”
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.