No. 04-687
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2006 MT 78N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DANIEL TODD COLLINS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County Missoula, Cause No. DC 97-12467,
Honorable John S. Henson, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Lisa B. Kauffman, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jim Wheelis,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Fred Van Valkenburg, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 31, 2006
Decided: April 18, 2006
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed
as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case
title, Supreme Court cause number and result in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable
cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 On October 11, 2001, Daniel Todd Collins was released on parole. Collins
completed his parole term on June 18, 2003, at which time he commenced probation for
the suspended portion of his sentence. In August 2003, Collins was incarcerated for a
suspected violation of probation. The probationary report filed a few days later alleged
that Collins had violated the terms of his probation in several respects by: consuming
prohibited substances; failing to comply with treatment; and starting a business without
permission. Some of the incidents alleged occurred while Collins was on parole, before
he began probation.
¶3 The first issue Collins raises on appeal is whether the District Court properly
relied, in part, on violations previously addressed while he was on parole when revoking
Collins’s suspended sentence. Since Collins did not raise this issue to the District Court,
he has waived it on appeal and we decline to address it. “It is well-established that this
Court will not address either an issue raised for the first time on appeal or a party’s
change in legal theory.” State v. Wetzel, 2005 MT 154, ¶ 13, 327 Mont. 413, ¶ 13, 114
P.3d 269, ¶ 13 (citations omitted).
1
¶4 Collins also argues that the State failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence
that he violated probation and that the delayed hearing date did not meet the requirements
of due process.
¶5 It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant to our Order of February 11, 2003,
amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for
memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us
that the appeal is without merit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence, the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District
Court correctly interpreted, and there was clearly no abuse of discretion by the District
Court.
¶6 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
We concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ JOHN WARNER
2