State v. A. Ruff ( 2021 )

12/28/2021
DA 19-0167
Case Number: DA 19-0167
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2021 MT 325N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
ALAN TODD RUFF,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DC-17-225C
Honorable John C. Brown, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Alexander H. Pyle, Assistant Appellate
Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Roy Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney, Bjorn E. Boyer, Deputy County
Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 8, 2021
Decided: December 28, 2021
Filed:
c ir-641.—if
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James Jeremiah Shea 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, 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 Alan Todd Ruff appeals from the July 31, 2018 Sentencing Order of the
Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, prescribing probation conditions
related to alcohol and gambling restrictions. We affirm.
¶3 Ruff pled guilty to one count of incest and one count of sexual assault. He was
sentenced to 60 years with 20 years suspended for the incest count, and 20 years with no
time suspended for the sexual assault count. The sentence also includes probation
conditions related to alcohol and gambling. Specifically, Ruff is prohibited from using or
possessing alcohol or illegal drugs, or seeking employment where alcohol is the chief item
of sale; Ruff shall not enter any casinos or engage in gambling activity; and Ruff shall
submit to drug testing and obtain a chemical dependency evaluation at his expense if
requested by his probation officer. Ruff did not object to these conditions at the time of
the sentencing hearing. He appeals these conditions on the basis that they lack a nexus to
either the offenses (incest and sexual assault, which he contends were committed without
the influence of drugs or alcohol), or the offender.
¶4 We review a criminal sentence for legality, “that is, whether the sentence falls within
the statutory parameters.” State v. Hernandez, 2009 MT 341, ¶ 3, 353 Mont. 111,
220 P.3d 25 (citing State v. Kotwicki, 2007 MT 17, ¶ 5, 335 Mont. 344, 151 P.3d 892). If
2
a probation condition is not objected to below, we generally refuse to address the issue on
appeal. State v. Ashby, 2008 MT 83, ¶ 22, 342 Mont. 187, 179 P.3d 1164. However, if the
sentence is illegal or “exceeds statutory mandates,” this Court will review the sentence
even if not objected to below. State v. Stiles, 2008 MT 390, ¶ 11, 347 Mont. 95,
197 P.3d 966 (citing State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 343, 602 P.2d 997, 1000 (1979)).
A sentencing court’s failure to abide by certain statutory requirements, such as considering
relevant factors, may result in an objectionable sentence; however, an objectionable
sentence is not necessarily an illegal sentence subject to the exception in
Lenihan. Kotwicki, ¶ 13; State v. Ingram, 2020 MT 327, ¶ 18, 402 Mont. 374,
478 P.3d 799.
¶5 Ruff urges this Court to overrule Stiles and find that a sentence condition that lacks
the appropriate nexus to the offense or offender amounts to an illegal sentence subject to
the Lenihan exception.1 The State argues that this Court’s decisions prior to Stiles do not
hold that unpreserved nexus objections are reviewable, even though we have stated that to
be legal, “a condition of a sentence must” have a nexus to the conviction. State v. Marshall,
2007 MT 218, ¶ 20, 339 Mont. 50, 170 P.3d 923. For example, in Ashby, this Court
cautioned defendants that a failure to object to improper conditions at or before sentencing
may result in a waiver of that objection. Ashby, ¶ 22.
¶6 The alcohol and gambling probation conditions imposed on Ruff are within the
District Court’s authority under § 46-18-202, MCA, and do not exceed the court’s
1
Ruff also urges the Court to overrule Hernandez. Because we affirm the conviction based on our
holding in Stiles, we decline to review the Hernandez holding.
3
sentencing authority. The District Court’s failure to address the nexus between the
conditions and the offense is a failure to follow a statutory requirement but it does not
exceed statutory mandates. The deficiency merely renders the sentence objectionable.
Stiles, ¶ 11. We decline to overrule Stiles and review Ruff’s unpreserved objections to the
sentence conditions related to alcohol and gambling.
¶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. We affirm.
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ JIM RICE
4