State v. Paquette , 2016 MT 54N ( 2016 )

March 8 2016
DA 14-0360
Case Number: DA 14-0360
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 54N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JENNIFER LYNN PAQUETTE,
Defendant and Appellant
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DC-12-382(D)
Honorable David M. Ortley, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Paul Sullivan, Measure, Sampsel, Sullivan & O’Brien, P.C., Kalispell,
Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Micheal S. Wellenstein,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Ed Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 17, 2016
Decided: March 8, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia Cotter 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Rules, this case is decided by unpublished opinion and shall not be cited and does not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 In October 2012, Jennifer Paquette was involved in an altercation to which
officers of the Flathead County Sheriff’s Office responded. Paquette was charged with
felony assault with a weapon, felony attempted assault on a peace officer, and
misdemeanor assault with bodily fluid.
¶3 Paquette has a lengthy history of mental illness and at the February 13, 2013
omnibus hearing, Paquette indicated that she would rely on a mental illness defense.
Following plea negotiations, Paquette pled no contest to attempted assault on a peace
officer and the remaining charges were dropped. Subsequently, sentencing was delayed
for multiple reasons, including Paquette’s involuntary commitment to the Montana State
Hospital (MSH). The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, conducted a
sentencing hearing on November 14, 2013, at which both Paquette and her attorney were
present. The court ordered that Paquette be committed to the Department of Public
Health and Human Services (DPHHS) for a period of five years to be placed in an
appropriate facility that will provide care and treatment for her mental health issues. The
court urged that DPHHS not incarcerate her in a correctional facility. The District Court
judge indicated at sentencing that he had read Paquette’s lengthy medical records,
2
including the mental evaluation in the presentence investigation and the records
generated during Paquette’s April 2013 commitment to MSH, and that the sentence was
designed to provide Paquette with treatment that could possibly allow her to function as a
law-abiding citizen upon release. The court included numerous parole conditions but
waived assessment of fees based upon Paquette’s indigency. Paquette appeals. We
affirm.
¶4 Paquette claims on appeal that the District Court erred by sentencing her without
complying with §§ 46-14-311 and -312, MCA. These statutes instruct sentencing courts
that are dealing with mentally impaired defendants to order and consider mental
evaluations designed to assist the sentencing court in making the best treatment, care, and
custody sentencing decisions for the defendant. Paquette argues that because the court
did not order the evaluation before sentencing her, “there is the appearance that all
necessary information was not considered and [Paquette’s] fundamental constitutional
rights were violated.”
¶5 Paquette failed to preserve this argument for appeal by failing to raise the issue
before the District Court. It is well-established that to properly preserve an issue or
argument for appeal, a party must raise it in the district court. In State v. West, 2008 MT
338, ¶ 17, 346 Mont. 244, 194 P.3d 683, we explained: “[T]he rationale underlying the
timely-objection rule is judicial economy and ‘bringing alleged errors to the attention of
each court involved, so that actual error can be prevented or corrected at the first
opportunity.’” Here, Paquette had ample opportunity to notify the court of its obligations
under the statutes but she failed to do so. On appeal, she acknowledges that she did not
3
raise this argument but requests that we review her argument under the plain error
doctrine. We invoke our “plain error review” sparingly and decline to do so here. State
v. Main, 2011 MT 123, ¶ 53, 360 Mont. 470, 255 P.3d 1240. Moreover, because the
record establishes that the District Court had before it an extensive medical account of
Paquette’s past and current mental status when making its sentencing decision, there is no
evidence to support her contention that her fundamental constitutional rights were
violated.
¶6 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for unpublished opinions. In the opinion of
this Court, this case presents questions clearly controlled by settled law.
¶7 Affirmed.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
4