Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Stiles

Montana Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 2008No. DA 07-0026 and DA 07-0027Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Nelson

*101¶19 I concur in the Court’s decision to reverse the District Court’s imposition of Condition 12. I dissent, however, from the Court’s treatment of the other four conditions challenged by Stiles and, more generally, from the Court’s new approach with respect to reviewing the legality of sentencing conditions.

¶20 Stiles challenges five conditions imposed by the District Court on his suspended sentence: no drugs or drug paraphernalia (Condition 10); no alcohol or intoxicants, plus mandatory testing for drugs and alcohol (Condition 12); no electronic scanning devices (Condition 20); no casinos or…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. State v. LenihanMontana Supreme Court · 1979
  2. State v. AshbyMontana Supreme Court · 2008
  3. State v. HicksMontana Supreme Court · 2006
  4. State v. HatfieldMontana Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State v. OmmundsonMontana Supreme Court · 1999

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API