Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Coleman

Supreme Court of Montana

December 4, 2018

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JORDAN TODD COLEMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

          Submitted on Briefs: September 19, 2018

          APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DC 13-0698 Honorable Russell C. Fagg, Presiding Judge

          For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Danny Tenenbaum, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana

          For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Madison L. Mattioli, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Scott Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney, Billings, Montana

          OPINION

          LAURIE MCKINNON, JUSTICE

         ¶1 Jordan Coleman (Coleman) appeals from a sentence imposed by the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. We address the following issue:

         Did the defendant waive his right to challenge the constitutionality of a probation condition by failing to previously object?

         ¶2 We conclude the defendant waived his as-applied constitutional challenge and accordingly affirm the District Court's imposed sentence.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         ¶3 In October 2014, Coleman entered a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to a single count of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent. A few months later, the District Court sentenced Coleman, committing him to the Montana State Prison for thirty years with ten years suspended. The court further ordered various probation conditions for any period of community supervision, including Condition Forty-Five, which provided, "[Coleman] shall not have a cell phone, or such other technology/device with photo, video, or Internet capabilities." Coleman did not object to Condition Forty-Five at or before sentencing. Coleman now appeals the condition and asks this Court to strike it from his sentence.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶4 We review criminal sentences for legality-that is, whether the sentence is within statutory parameters. State v. Cleveland, 2014 MT 305, ¶ 10, 377 Mont. 97, 338 P.3d 606 (citing State v. Montoya, 1999 MT 180, ¶ 15, 295 Mont. 288, 983 P.2d 937); State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 342-43, 602 P.2d 997, 999-1000 (1979).

         DISCUSSION

         ¶5 Coleman argues that Condition Forty-Five is illegal because it is an overly-broad restriction on his First Amendment freedom of speech. Because Coleman did not present this argument to the District Court, however, we ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.