State v. Hameline

Decision Date08 July 2008
Docket NumberNo. DA 06-0664.,DA 06-0664.
Citation188 P.3d 1052,2008 MT 241
PartiesSTATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Sylvester Wayne HAMELINE, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

For Appellant: Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Helena, Montana.

For Appellee: Hon. Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General; Sheri K. Sprigg, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Brant Light, Cascade County Attorney; Joel Thompson, Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana.

Chief Justice KARLA M. GRAY delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Sylvester Wayne Hameline (Hameline) appeals from the judgment entered by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, on his conviction and sentence for the offense of sexual intercourse without consent. We affirm.

¶ 2 Hameline raises the following issues on appeal:

¶ 3 1. Did the District Court err in imposing conditions on Hameline's sentence restricting his contact with children under the age of 18 and his access to pornographic materials?

¶ 4 2. Did the District Court err in imposing an annual polygraph testing condition on Hameline's sentence?

BACKGROUND

¶ 5 In September of 2005, the State of Montana (State) charged Hameline by information with the felony offenses of sexual intercourse without consent and aggravated burglary. Hameline subsequently appeared in the District Court to plead guilty to the sexual intercourse without consent charge pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. In exchange for Hameline's guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend a 40-year sentence at the Montana State Prison (MSP), with 25 years suspended, and to dismiss the aggravated burglary count. The District Court accepted Hameline's guilty plea, granted the State's motion to dismiss the aggravated burglary charge, ordered that a presentence investigation be conducted and scheduled a sentencing hearing.

¶ 6 The presentence investigation report (PSI) concurred in the State's recommendation that Hameline be sentenced to a term of 40 years with 25 years suspended. Appended to the PSI was a psychological/psychosexual evaluation report regarding Hameline completed in February of 2006. The evaluation report included 11 sentence and treatment recommendations, including that Hameline be required to complete chemical dependency and sexual offender treatment programs, be restricted from unsupervised contact with children under the age of 18, not possess or have access to pornography, and "submit to a treatment polygraph examination upon the request of his probation officer or therapist." The PSI's 37 recommended conditions of sentence incorporated the sentence and treatment recommendations outlined in the psychological/psychosexual evaluation report, including that Hameline "submit to annual polygraph testing."

¶ 7 At the sentencing hearing, Hameline presented testimony from the psychologist who conducted the psychological/psychosexual evaluation, and the District Court heard sentencing recommendations from both parties. Hameline also acknowledged that he received and reviewed the PSI, but he made no objections to its contents. The court then sentenced Hameline to a 40-year term at the MSP, with 20 years suspended, and imposed the 37 recommended conditions on the suspended portion of the sentence. The District Court subsequently entered its written sentence and judgment, and Hameline appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8 Hameline challenges the District Court's imposition of various conditions on the suspended portion of his sentence. We review a sentencing condition for legality, determining whether the condition is within statutory parameters. State v. Ashby, 2008 MT 83, ¶¶ 8-9, 342 Mont. 187, ¶¶ 8-9, 179 P.3d 1164, ¶¶ 8-9. If the condition falls within statutory parameters, we then review the reasonableness of the condition to determine whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing it. Ashby, ¶ 9.

DISCUSSION

¶ 9 1. Did the District Court err in imposing conditions on Hameline's sentence restricting his contact with children under the age of 18 and his access to pornographic materials?

¶ 10 Hameline challenges 10 of the sentencing conditions imposed by the District Court which restrict his contact with children under the age of 18 and his access to pornographic materials. Hameline does not assert that the District Court was without statutory authority to impose these conditions. Rather, he contends there is no evidence of record to support imposition of the conditions in this case. In other words, Hameline argues that the District Court abused its discretion in imposing the conditions. He does not contend that the conditions are illegal.

¶ 11 In response, the State first argues that Hameline is barred from challenging the propriety of these sentencing conditions on appeal because he failed to challenge the conditions in the District Court. We agree.

¶ 12 We generally refuse to review issues on appeal where the party failed to object in the trial court. State v. Kotwicki, 2007 MT 17, ¶ 8, 335 Mont. 344, ¶ 8, 151 P.3d 892, ¶ 8. We have created an exception to this general rule which allows appellate review of a criminal sentence which is alleged to be illegal, or in excess of statutory mandates, even where the defendant failed to object to the sentence in the trial court. See State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 343, 602 P.2d 997, 1000 (1979). However, "a sentencing court's failure to abide by a statutory requirement rises to an objectionable sentence, not necessarily an illegal one that would invoke the Lenihan exception." Kotwicki, ¶ 13

¶ 13 When a sentencing court suspends all or a portion of a sentence, it is authorized to impose reasonable restrictions or conditions on the sentence which the court considers necessary for rehabilitation of the defendant or protection of society. See §§ 46-18-201(4)(o) and -202(1)(f), MCA. We previously have held that sentencing conditions which restrict a defendant's contact with persons under the age of 18 and his or her access to, or possession of, pornographic materials are authorized pursuant to the sentencing court's statutory authority to impose conditions relating to the defendant's rehabilitation, and the protection of the victim and society, where the conditions reasonably relate to the factual circumstances of the specific case. See e.g. State v. Malloy, 2004 MT 377, ¶¶ 8 and 15, 325 Mont. 86, ¶¶ 8 and 15, 103 P.3d 1064, ¶¶ 8 and 15.

¶ 14 The District Court had authority pursuant to §§ 46-18-201(4)(o) and -202(1)(f), MCA, to impose the 10 sentencing conditions to which Hameline objects here and, therefore, those conditions are within statutory parameters. Hameline's argument that the District Court abused its discretion because no evidence of record supports imposition of the conditions in this case is merely a contention that his sentence is objectionable, not that it is illegal. Consequently, the Lenihan exception is not available to Hameline here and we decline to address this issue further.

¶ 15 2. Did the District Court err in imposing an annual polygraph testing condition on Hameline's sentence?

¶ 16 The District Court also imposed as a condition of Hameline's suspended sentence a requirement that he submit to annual polygraph testing. Hameline contends this condition is illegal on its face and must be stricken from his sentence. The State again notes that Hameline failed to object to this condition in the District Court, but concedes he is challenging the underlying legality of the condition rather than its reasonableness under the circumstances of this case. In light of the State's concession, we review the merits of this issue under the Lenihan exception.

¶ 17 Hameline first asserts that the polygraph condition is illegal because results of a polygraph test are inadmissible in any court proceeding in Montana. He is correct that polygraph results are inadmissible, but he is incorrect that inadmissibility of results renders the polygraph condition illegal.

¶ 18 In State v. Staat, 248 Mont. 291, 811 P.2d 1261 (1991), Staat was released on bond pending his appeal and his bond subsequently was revoked based on the results of a court-ordered polygraph test. We granted Staat's petition for writ of supervisory control and ordered that he be released from custody and his bond reinstated. Staat, 248 Mont. at 291, 811 P.2d at 1261. We observed that § 37-62-302, MCA (repealed by 1995 Mont. Laws Sec. 128, Ch. 429), provided that results of a polygraph examination could not be admitted as evidence in a Montana court of law, and stated that

[i]n light of the lack of trustworthiness of the results of polygraph tests, we conclude that application of the above statute should not be limited to those court proceedings in which the rules of evidence govern, but should extend to every proceeding in Montana courts of law. This is critical in situations such as the one presented here, where the rules of evidence do not apply but where allowing the court to consider the results of a polygraph examination may deprive a person of his or her liberty based upon that evidence.

Staat, 248 Mont. at 292, 811 P.2d at 1261-62. Although we held that polygraph examination results were not admissible in any court proceeding, the legality of the court's underlying order that Staat take a polygraph test was neither raised nor addressed.

¶ 19 We further refined the "not admissible" rule in State v. Anderson, 1999 MT 58, 293 Mont. 472, 977 P.2d 315. There, Anderson submitted to a polygraph test as part of a psychosexual evaluation he agreed to undergo pursuant to a plea agreement. The doctor who performed the evaluation and prepared the related report relied on the polygraph test in preparing the report; the probation officer also relied on the evaluation report in preparing the PSI. Anderson, ¶¶ 4-5. Anderson requested a continuance of the sentencing hearing for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Walker
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • December 19, 2018
    ...based its motion on a line of precedent from this Court excluding polygraph evidence from all court proceedings. See, e.g. , State v. Hameline , 2008 MT 241, ¶ 20, 344 Mont. 461, 188 P.3d 1052 ; State v. Anderson , 1999 MT 58, ¶ 12, 293 Mont. 472, 977 P.2d 315 ; State v. Staat , 248 Mont. 2......
  • State v. Stiles
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • November 20, 2008
    ...test to determine whether the condition was legal, not whether the district court had abused its discretion in imposing it. See State v. Hameline, 2008 MT 241, ¶ 8, 344 Mont. 461, ¶ 8, 188 P.3d 1052, ¶ 8 ("We review a sentencing condition for legality, determining whether the condition is w......
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wagner-Ellsworth
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • July 8, 2008
    ... ... Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 2004 MT 72, ¶ 9, 320 Mont. 375, ¶ 9, 87 P.3d 995, ¶ 9 (citing Wendell v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 1999 MT 17, ¶ 10, 293 Mont. 140, ¶ 10, 974 P.2d 623, ¶ 10). Consequently, we review whether the District Court correctly ... ...
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • November 15, 2011
    ...State v. Stiles, 2008 MT 390, ¶ 14, 347 Mont. 95, 197 P.3d 966; State v. Ashby, 2008 MT 83, ¶ 22, 342 Mont. 187, 179 P.3d 1164; State v. Hameline, 2008 MT 241, ¶ 14, 344 Mont. 461, 188 P.3d 1052.b. Restitution for Future Counseling ¶ 15 The District Court also imposed restitution for the vi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Julie A. Seaman, Black Boxes
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 58-2, 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...45, 49 (Mo. 2006) ("The results of a polygraph examination generally are inadmissible in Missouri criminal trials."); State v. Hameline, 188 P.3d 1052, 1055 (Mont. 2008) ("[P]olygraph results are inadmissible . . . ."); Darling v. State, 262 S.W.3d 913, 920 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008) ("The result......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT