Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011 (2026)

Supervision On Probation -- Removal Of Condition Of Supervision

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 23. PROBATION, PAROLE, AND CLEMENCY

Part 10. Supervision of Probationers and Parolees

Supervision On Probation -- Removal Of Condition Of Supervision

46-23-1011. Supervision on probation -- removal of condition of supervision. (1) The department shall supervise probationers during their probation period, including supervision after release from imprisonment imposed pursuant to 45-5-503(4), 45-5-507(5), 45-5-601(3), 45-5-625(4), or 45-5-711, in accord with the conditions set by a sentencing judge. If the sentencing judge did not set conditions of probation at the time of sentencing, the court shall, at the request of the department, hold a hearing and set conditions of probation. The probationer must be present at the hearing. The probationer has the right to counsel as provided in chapter 8 of this title.

(2) If the probationer is being supervised for a sexual offense as defined in 46-23-502, the conditions of probation may require the probationer to refrain from direct or indirect contact with the victim of the offense or an immediate family member of the victim. If the victim or an immediate family member of the victim requests to the department that the probationer not contact the victim or immediate family member, the department shall request a hearing with a sentencing judge and recommend that the judge add the condition of probation. If the victim is a minor, a parent or guardian of the victim may make the request on the victim's behalf.

(3) A copy of the conditions of probation must be signed by the probationer. The department may require a probationer to waive extradition for the probationer's return to Montana.

(4) The probation and parole officer shall regularly advise and consult with the probationer using effective communication strategies and other evidence-based practices to encourage the probationer to improve the probationer's condition and conduct and shall inform the probationer of the restoration of rights on successful completion of the sentence.

(5) (a) The probation and parole officer may recommend and a judge may modify or add any condition of probation or suspension of sentence at any time.

(b) The probation and parole officer shall provide the county attorney in the sentencing jurisdiction with a report that identifies the conditions of probation and the reason why the officer believes that the judge should modify or add the conditions.

(c) The county attorney may file a petition requesting that the court modify or add conditions as requested by the probation and parole officer.

(d) The court may grant the petition if the probationer does not object. If the probationer objects to the petition, the court shall hold a hearing pursuant to the provisions of 46-18-203.

(6) (a) The probation and parole officer may submit the intent to remove a condition of supervision by notifying the sentencing court, the probationer, and the county attorney in the sentencing jurisdiction in writing of the condition of supervision to be removed. If no objection pursuant to subsection (6)(b) occurs, the condition is removed.

(b) If the sentencing court, the probationer, or the county attorney in the sentencing jurisdiction objects within 14 days to the probation and parole officer's notification of intent to remove a condition of supervision, the court shall hold a hearing as provided in 46-18-203.

(c) To reinstate a condition of supervision that was removed pursuant to subsection (6)(a), the probation and parole officer shall notify the sentencing court, the probationer, and the county attorney in the sentencing jurisdiction in writing.

(d) If a condition of supervision removed or reinstated under this subsection (6) affects restitution and interest to the victim, as provided in 46-18-241 through 46-18-249, or if the removed or reinstated condition affects direct or indirect contact with the victim, as provided in 46-24-203, or both, the county attorney in the sentencing jurisdiction shall make reasonable efforts to notify the victim by providing a copy of the notice described in subsection (6)(a).

(7) Except as they apply to supervision after release from imprisonment imposed pursuant to 45-5-503(4), 45-5-507(5), 45-5-601(3), 45-5-625(4), or 45-5-711, the provisions of 46-18-203(8)(a)(ii) do not apply to this section.

(8) The probationer shall sign a copy of new, removed, reinstated, or modified conditions of probation. The court may waive or modify a condition of restitution only as provided in 46-18-246.

(9) Based on the risk and needs of each individual as determined by the individual's most recent risk and needs assessment, the probation and parole officer shall notify the probationer of eligibility for conditional discharge from supervision when a probationer is in compliance with the conditions of supervision when:

(a) under the women's risks and needs assessment:

(i) a low-risk probationer has served 9 months;

(ii) a moderate-risk probationer has served 12 months;

(iii) a medium-risk probationer has served 18 months; and

(iv) a high-risk probationer has served 24 months; and

(b) under the Montana offender reentry and risk assessment:

(i) a low-risk probationer has served 9 months;

(ii) a moderate-risk probationer has served 12 months;

(iii) a high-risk probationer has served 18 months; and

(iv) a very high-risk probationer has served 24 months.

(10) The probationer, the probationer's attorney, or the prosecutor may file a motion recommending conditional discharge. The motion must set forth the following:

(a) why the probationer meets the requirements of subsection (9); and

(b) whether the department of corrections supports or opposes the motion.

(11) The motion must be served on the county attorney serving in the county of the presiding district court. The movant does not need to file an accompanying brief as otherwise required by Rule 2 of the Montana Uniform District Court Rules.

(12) The department of corrections shall make reasonable efforts to notify the victim if required by 46-24-212, and the county attorney shall make reasonable efforts to notify the victim. The victim must be provided the following:

(a) a copy of the motion;

(b) written notice that:

(i) the victim may provide written input regarding the motion or may ask the county attorney to state the victim's position on the motion;

(ii) if a hearing is set, the date, time, and place of the hearing; and

(iii) the victim may appear and testify at any hearing held on the motion.

(13) (a) The court may hold a hearing on the motion. A judge may conditionally discharge a probationer from supervision before expiration of the probationer's sentence if:

(i) the judge determines that a conditional discharge from supervision:

(A) is in the best interests of the probationer and society; and

(B) will not present unreasonable risk of danger to the victim of the offense; and

(ii) the offender has paid all restitution and court-ordered financial obligations in full.

(b) Subsection (13)(a) does not prohibit a judge from revoking the order suspending execution or deferring imposition of sentence, as provided in 46-18-203, for a probationer who has been conditionally discharged from supervision.

History: En. 95-3304 by Sec. 10, Ch. 333, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 95-3304; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 195, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 579, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 26, Ch. 125, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 13, Ch. 52, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 505, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 493, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 25, Ch. 483, L. 2007; amd. Sec. 16, Ch. 374, L. 2013; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 113, L. 2015; amd. Sec. 26, Ch. 285, L. 2015; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 391, L. 2017; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 380, L. 2019; amd. Sec. 13, Ch. 566, L. 2021; amd. Sec. 34, Ch. 167, L. 2023; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 356, L. 2025; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 624, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: State v. LaFreniere, 2008 MT 99 (Mont. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. LaFreniere, 2008 MT 99 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 26× “¶2 We consider the following issue on appeal: ¶3 Did the District Court err when, pursuant to § 46-23-1011, MCA, it added as a condition to LaFreniere’s probation that he successfully complete Phase II of a sex offender treatment program? FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶4 On…”

State v. Therriault, 2000 MT 286 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 8× “Further, under § 46-23-1011(1), MCA, the "department shall supervise persons during their probation period in accord with the conditions set by a court.”

State v. Richard Gillingham, 2008 MT 38 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 7× “Section 46-23-1011(2), MCA (1991), required that he sign a copy of the conditions of probation.”

State v. Jack Griffin, 2007 MT 289 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 28× “The Deputy County Attorney then moved the court to modify the conditions of Griffin’s probation as requested, pursuant to § 46-23-1011(4), MCA (2005). Several days later, the District Court approved the motion and entered an order modifying the conditions of Griffin’s…”

State v. Brotherton, 2008 MT 119 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 4× “reasonable and necessary for rehabilitation or for the protection of the victim or society); §§ 46-18-206, -255, MCA (mandating certain conditions under specified circumstances); see also § 46-23-1001(4), MCA (defining “probation” as the release of a defendant “subject to…”

State v. Radan, 143 Wash. 2d 323 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 3× “] Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011 . Radan contends that the statutory considerations are equivalent to a finding of rehabilitation.”

State v. Damon, 2005 MT 218 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 2× “Section 61-8-731(6), MCA (2001), specifically states that the provisions of § 46-18-203, MCA (2001) (dealing with revocation of a suspended or deferred sentence); § 46-23-1001 through § 46-23-1005, MCA (2001) (dealing with the supervision of probationers and parolees); §…”

State v. Senn, 2003 MT 52 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 4× “Senn also contends that Welling’s failure to adequately supervise him, as required by § 46-23-1011(3), MCA, should preclude the finding of a violation, or in the alternate, such a harsh sentence.”

State v. Lindeman, 948 P.2d 221 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 5× “Although the District Court mistakenly stated that Lindeman had completed treatment, and Lindeman’s misrepresentations to the court in this regard must have carried influence, such a “finding” was not necessary to the court’s decision.”

State v. J. Parkhill, 2018 MT 69 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 2× “Neither did the District Court limit Parkhill's ability to petition to remove or modify the conditions, upon the recommendation of his probation officer, at a later date under § 46-23-1011(5)(a), MCA. The District Court could have considered less restrictive conditions to…”

State v. Ford, 707 P.2d 16 (Mont. 1985). · cites it 6× “Did the probation officer adequately advise probationer as required by Section 46-23-1011, MCA? 3. Did the court abuse its discretion in considering defendant’s prior record and the offenses for which he was sentenced rather than limiting the hearing to the issue of probation…”

State v. Roper, 2001 MT 96 (Mont. 2001). · cites it 3× “Section 46-23-1011(6), MCA, which provides for conditional discharge from supervision, does not elaborate on the extent of discharge.”

Show all 48 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011(1) — 12 cases

State v. Therriault, 2000 MT 286 (Mont. 2000). “Further, under § 46-23-1011(1), MCA, the "department shall supervise persons during their probation period in accord with the conditions set by a court.”

State v. LaFreniere, 2008 MT 99 (Mont. 2008). “¶2 We consider the following issue on appeal: ¶3 Did the District Court err when, pursuant to § 46-23-1011, MCA, it added as a condition to LaFreniere’s probation that he successfully complete Phase II of a sex offender treatment program? FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶4 On…”

State v. Brotherton, 2008 MT 119 (Mont. 2008). “reasonable and necessary for rehabilitation or for the protection of the victim or society); §§ 46-18-206, -255, MCA (mandating certain conditions under specified circumstances); see also § 46-23-1001(4), MCA (defining “probation” as the release of a defendant “subject to…”

State v. D. Ingram, 2020 MT 327 (Mont. 2020).

State v. E. Yeaton, 2021 MT 312 (Mont. 2021).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011(10)(a) — 1 case

State v. R. Glick, 2023 MT 24N (Mont. 2023).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011(2) — 4 cases

State v. Richard Gillingham, 2008 MT 38 (Mont. 2008). “Section 46-23-1011(2), MCA (1991), required that he sign a copy of the conditions of probation.”

State v. Graves, 2015 MT 262 (Mont. 2015).

R. Gillingham v. Salmonsen (Mont. 2021).

State v. Howland, 274 Mont. 89 (Mont. 1995).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011(3) — 4 cases

State v. Senn, 2003 MT 52 (Mont. 2003). “Senn also contends that Welling’s failure to adequately supervise him, as required by § 46-23-1011(3), MCA, should preclude the finding of a violation, or in the alternate, such a harsh sentence.”

State v. Sullivant, 2013 MT 200 (Mont. 2013).

State v. Schmidt, 2005 MT 339N (Mont. 2005).

Shull v. Capt. Bragg (Mont. 2024).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011(4) — 7 cases

State v. Jack Griffin, 2007 MT 289 (Mont. 2007). “The Deputy County Attorney then moved the court to modify the conditions of Griffin’s probation as requested, pursuant to § 46-23-1011(4), MCA (2005). Several days later, the District Court approved the motion and entered an order modifying the conditions of Griffin’s…”

State v. Lindeman, 948 P.2d 221 (Mont. 1997). “Although the District Court mistakenly stated that Lindeman had completed treatment, and Lindeman’s misrepresentations to the court in this regard must have carried influence, such a “finding” was not necessary to the court’s decision.”

State v. James Piller, 2014 MT 342 (Mont. 2014).

State v. Van Haele, 2005 MT 153 (Mont. 2005).

State v. B. Hindman, 2023 MT 204N (Mont. 2023).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011(4)(a) — 4 cases

State v. Dustin Robertson, 2015 MT 266 (Mont. 2015).

State v. Leyva, 2012 MT 124 (Mont. 2012).

State v. Andrew Brotherton, 2008 MT 119 (Mont. 2008).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011(4)(d) — 2 cases

In re A.D.T., 2015 MT 178 (Mont. 2015).

Matter of A.D.T., 2015 MT 178 (Mont. 2015).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011(5)(a) — 3 cases

State v. J. Parkhill, 2018 MT 69 (Mont. 2018). “Neither did the District Court limit Parkhill's ability to petition to remove or modify the conditions, upon the recommendation of his probation officer, at a later date under § 46-23-1011(5)(a), MCA. The District Court could have considered less restrictive conditions to…”

State v. M. Daricek, 2018 MT 31 (Mont. 2018).

State v. J. Hurt, 2024 MT 23N (Mont. 2024).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-1011(6) — 2 cases

State v. Roper, 2001 MT 96 (Mont. 2001). “Section 46-23-1011(6), MCA, which provides for conditional discharge from supervision, does not elaborate on the extent of discharge.”

State v. J. Marsh, 2021 MT 23N (Mont. 2021).

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.