July 9 2013
DA 12-0578
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2013 MT 182N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
HARRY PAUL MOTTSMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DC 09-253C
Honorable Stewart E. Stadler, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Wade M. Zolynski, Chief Appellate Defender; Eileen A. Larkin, Assistant
Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General; Pamela P. Collins, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Ed Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: June 19, 2013
Decided: July 9, 2013
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), 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 Harry Paul Mottsman appeals from his July 2012 sentence following his conviction of
the offense of felony theft, pursuant to a guilty plea. We affirm.
¶3 The District Court sentenced Mottsman to five years with the Department of
Corrections, all suspended, and imposed conditions. One of those conditions was that
Mottsman “deal with” outstanding charges against him in three other states. The District
Court’s written judgment includes the condition that Mottsman “resolve any and all
outstanding legal matters to the satisfaction of his Supervising Officer.” Mottsman argues on
appeal that this condition concerning the charges in other states was illegal and was a
violation of both State and Federal law concerning extradition. This Court reviews the
legality of sentencing conditions de novo. State v. Corbin, 2008 MT 146, ¶ 4, 343 Mont.
211, 184 P.3d 287.
¶4 The District Court had the authority to impose reasonable conditions considered
necessary for rehabilitation or for the protection of the victim or society. Sections 46-18-201
and -202, MCA; State v. Guill, 2011 MT 32, ¶ 58, 359 Mont. 225, 248 P.3d 826. The
presentence investigation report on Mottsman showed that there were theft or forgery
2
charges, similar to the offense he was charged with in Montana, pending against him in other
states.
¶5 Mottsman not only failed to object to the disputed condition in the District Court
proceedings, he specifically agreed on the record to the sentence and its conditions, with
some exceptions not relevant here. The statutory provisions on extradition that Mottsman
relies upon for his argument are not applicable to his case. No other state is seeking
Mottsman’s extradition, and he agreed to be responsible for resolving the charges
outstanding against him in other jurisdictions. Mottsman was represented by counsel at
sentencing and did not raise any challenge to the accuracy of the information about pending
charges in other states. He has not demonstrated that his rights were infringed. State v.
McLeod, 2002 MT 348, ¶¶ 23-26, 313 Mont. 358, 61 P.3d 126. The conditions imposed by
the District Court were not illegal.
¶6 Because these issues are controlled by settled Montana law, we have determined to
decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our Internal Operating Rules, which
provides for memorandum opinions.
¶7 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We concur:
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JIM RICE
3