Appellant Kandice Tellegen (Tellegen) filed a Petition for Rehearing with this Court on November 22, 2013. Tellegen disagrees with this Court's November 12, 2013, Opinion in State v. Tellegen, 2013 MT 337, 372 Mont. 454, ___ P.3d ___, affirming her conviction at trial on accountability for burglary.
This Court will consider a petition for rehearing if it has "overlooked some fact material to the decision, " if the decision missed a question provided by counsel that would have decided that case, or if the decision "conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by this Court. M. R. App. P. 20. "[A] petition for rehearing is not a forum in which to rehash arguments made in the briefs and considered by the Court." State ex rel Bullock v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 2009 MT 261, 352 Mont. 30, 217 P.3d475, 486.
Tellegen takes issue with our conclusion at ¶ 21 that she could be found guilty under the mental state of "purposely, " arguing that it constitutes a higher standard than "knowingly." That argument was raised in the briefs and considered by this Court when we held that "[a] jury could easily find Tellegen guilty under either mental state based on the testimony presented at trial." Tellegen, ¶ 21. ...