State v. N. Wells

Majority Laurie McKinnon

11/06/2024 DA 22-0668 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 22-0668 2024 MT 263N STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NICHOLAS ADAMS WELLS, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. ADC-22-189 Honorable David J. Grubich, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Gregory E. Paskell, Attorney at Law, Lynwood, Washington For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Brad Fjeldheim, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Joshua A. Racki, Cascade County Attorney, Matthew Robertson, Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: May 17, 2024 Decided: November 6, 2024 Filed: Vir-6A--#f __________________________________________ Clerk  Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Nicholas Adams Wells (Wells) appeals several conditions of his suspended sentence entered in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. We affirm, but remand for a correction in the written judgment. ¶3 On April 1, 2022, police responded to Wells’s home for a report that a woman had been injured by her partner. Wells answered the door and was arrested for an outstanding warrant. The victim told police that Wells had struck her several times, banged her head on the floor, bitten her right arm, and choked her. The victim said Wells was very intoxicated and that she lost consciousness when Wells choked her. ¶4 On April 6, 2022, Wells was charged by Information with felony strangulation of a partner or family member, in violation of § 45-5-215(1)(a), MCA, and felony partner or family member assault (PFMA), third offense, in violation of § 45-5-206(1)(a), MCA. Wells entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to the State’s dismissal of the strangulation charge and its recommendation of a five-year suspended sentence to the Montana State Prison, with the condition that he have no contact with the victim and that he successfully complete a Duluth Model Batterer’s Intervention Course within the first 2  two years of the sentence. On August 4, 2022, the District Court accepted Wells’s Alford1 plea to PFMA and ordered a Presentence Investigation (PSI) report. Consistent with Wells’s agreement to participate in the Duluth Model Batterer’s Intervention Course approved by the Montana Department of Corrections, the PSI author recommended certain conditions that were required by the Duluth Model. Those conditions were objected to by defense counsel at sentencing, but the State explained that the conditions were part of the Duluth Model to which Wells agreed to participate as part of his plea agreement. The conditions Wells objected to at trial and now on appeal provide: 26. Probation and Parole Officer may conduct a search of electronic devices, to include cell phone, personal computer, and social media, if reasonable suspicion exists that the Defendant is attempting to contact the victim in violation of the Defendant’s conditions of supervision. 27. The Defendant must enter and complete a Victim Impact Listen and Learn Programming and Victim Impact Panel. 28. The Defendant shall sign and abide by an Intimate Partner Disclosure and an Offensive Contact Contract provided by his/her Probation and Parole Officer if required by his supervising Officer. Although Condition 28 was imposed by the District Court in its oral pronouncement of sentence, it was not included in the written judgment. ¶5 We have repeatedly held that “this Court will not lend its assistance to an accused in escaping his or her obligations of a plea bargain after accepting its benefits.” State v. Bowley, 282 Mont. 298, 310, 938 P.2d 592, 599 (1997). See also State v. Johnson, 274 Mont. 124, 129, 907 P.2d 150, 153 (1995); State v. Milinovich, 269 Mont. 68, 74, 887 P.2d 1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970). 3  214, 218 (1994); State v. Sattler, 170 Mont. 35, 37, 549 P.2d 1080, 1081 (1976). Here, we conclude that because Wells agreed to complete the Duluth Model Batterers Intervention Course as part of his plea agreement and Conditions 26, 27, and 28 were requirements of the program, the District Court was correct in imposing the Conditions. We further note that the Conditions each relate to both the underlying offense and the offender. See State v. Zimmerman, 2010 MT 44, ¶ 17, 355 Mont. 286, 228 P.3d 1109. ¶6 The District Court’s imposition of Conditions 26, 27, 28 is affirmed. This matter is remanded for the limited purpose of correcting the written judgment to conform with the District Court’s oral pronouncement that Condition 28 is imposed. ¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent or modify existing precedent. ¶8 Affirmed, and remanded for a correction in the written judgment. /S/ LAURIE McKINNON We Concur: /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON /S/ JIM RICE 4