State v. Holt
Montana Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Nelson
*316¶23 I concur with the Court’s conclusion that the District Court’s recommendation to the parole board, that Holt be required to register as a sexual offender if granted parole, is legal. Opinion, ¶¶ 18-19.1 also concur with the Court’s conclusion that the Level 3 sexual offender designation in Holt’s burglary sentence is illegal. Opinion, ¶¶ 20-21.
¶24 I dissent, however, from the Court’s resolution of Holt’s challenge to the sexual offender treatment condition on his parole eligibility. Opinion, ¶¶ 10-17. Holt challenges this condition as illegal; and for the reasons discussed below, I…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- State v. LenihanMontana Supreme Court · 1979
- State v. KotwickiMontana Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. AshbyMontana Supreme Court · 2008
- Stanley v. LemireMontana Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. WestMontana Supreme Court · 2008
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.