State v. Lalicker
| Decision Date | 15 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | DA 19-0683 |
| Citation | 2022 MT 54 N |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LYNDSEY MAE LALICKER, Defendant and Appellant. |
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Deborah S. Smith, 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 Boyer, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), 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 Defendant and Appellant Lyndsey Mae Lalicker (Lalicker) appeals from her jury conviction and the subsequent June 10 2019 Sentencing Order of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, finding her guilty of, and sentencing her for, the offense of parental interference, a felony, in violation of § 45-5-634, MCA. We affirm.
¶3 On appeal, Lalicker challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction. Specifically, she asserts the State "failed to prove that [Lalicker] knew she had no legal right to parent [child] during the weekend in question[.]"
¶4 We review whether evidence is sufficient to support a conviction de novo. State v. Boyd, 2021 MT 323, ¶ 12, 407 Mont. 1, 501 P.3d 409. The inquiry is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Boyd, ¶ 12. The question is whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict, not whether the evidence could have supported a different result. State v. Daniels, 2019 MT 214 ¶ 42, 397 Mont. 204, 448 P.3d 511.
¶5 Section 45-5-634, MCA, provides, in relevant part:
Lalicker was charged with one felony count of parenting interference alleged to have been committed on the weekend of April 14 2018. Lalicker and Luke Oyler (Oyler) are the parents of L.L. Since L.L's birth, they have engaged in contentious, ongoing litigation regarding the parenting of their child. Ultimately, the court handling their parenting plan action issued a parenting plan which provided each Lalicker and Oyler parenting time with their child and provided for a graduated parenting schedule which gradually increased Oyler's parenting time. Multiple disputes arose as to the parenting plan such that the Standing Master appointed a parenting coordinator, K.C. McLaughlin (McLaughlin), to assist the parties to progress to implement the final Parenting Plan. On December 29, 2017, the Standing Master ordered, "[t]he parties shall comply with Ms. McLaughlin's directives and scheduling of parenting time on time and as scheduled." The District Court subsequently confirmed this order and reiterated, "the parties will comply with [McLaughlin's] directives."
¶6 At the beginning of March 2018, McLaughlin determined Oyler had progressed to phase 6 of the parenting plan entitling him to alternating weekend parenting. McLaughlin set the new alternating weekend schedule to begin on March 17, 2018.[1] Under this ongoing alternating weekend schedule, Oyler was to have parenting time the weekend of April 14-15, 2018. On April 3, 2018, Lalicker advised she would be in Salmon, Idaho, for an annual horse auction April 12-15, 2018, and requested Oyler switch weekends as she wanted to take L.L. with her. Oyler declined as he suspected that if he agreed to an alternative parenting time, Lalicker would not stick to her word and would not provide L.L. for the alternative time.[2] On April 5, 2018, Lalicker filed a motion seeking an order to switch weekends so that Oyler would not have scheduled parenting the weekend of April 14, 2018. Following this, as Oyler had declined to switch weekends, McLaughlin decided to "let it lie at that," but did indicate that as the parties moved through the parenting plan phases, the plan could be further augmented in the future. On April 9, 2018, the Standing Master issued an order declining to rule on pending motions, including Lalicker's motion to switch weekends, as Lalicker had appealed the parenting plan to this Court.[3] On April 14, 2018, Lalicker emailed Oyler advising she and L.L. were out of town and unilaterally asserted that as Oyler had failed to switch weekends with her, he had forfeited his weekend parenting time.
¶7 On April 14, 2018, Oyler, McLaughlin, and Braun appeared at the Bozeman Law and Justice Center for the scheduled child exchange. Lalicker did not appear and did not answer when Braun and McLaughlin each tried calling her. Oyler, Braun, and McLaughlin then went inside the Law and Justice Center where they met with Deputy Clark to report Lalicker's parenting interference. They reported they believed Lalicker to be in Idaho working a horse sale. Deputy Clark attempted to reach Lalicker by phone at 11:30 a.m., but she did not answer. After consultation with the County Attorney's office, Deputy Clark then secured a warrant for Lalicker's arrest. Later in the day, Lalicker returned Deputy Clark's call. She related her various complaints about Oyler and McLaughlin's refusal to modify the commencement date of the alternating weekend parenting arrangement. Deputy Clark advised Lalicker she was committing a crime and that she should immediately return L.L. to Oyler. Lalicker reported she would bring L.L. back as soon as she was done working, probably the next morning. When questioned as to L.L.'s whereabouts, Lalicker was evasive and did not answer the question directly. Ultimately, she agreed to return with L.L. late that night. At the end of the call, Idaho deputies arrested Lalicker. L.L. was located not with Lalicker in Idaho but with Lalicker's father in Dillon, MT, and was ultimately returned to Oyler's care.
¶8 At trial, the State called four witnesses-Oyler, McLaughlin, Braun, and Deputy Clark. At the close of the State's case, Lalicker brought a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence, which the District Court denied. Lalicker called no witnesses. The jury returned a guilty verdict. The District Court subsequently deferred imposition of sentence for a period of six years. The District Court also imposed a fine of $2, 500, along with various other fees. Lalicker did not object to the fine or fees. The District Court, upon Lalicker's request, permitted a payment plan to pay the fine and fees.
¶9 From our review of the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence was presented to support Lalicker's conviction for parenting interference in violation of § 45-5-634, MCA. The State proved, and Lalicker does not contend otherwise, that both Lalicker and Oyler were granted and entitled to parent-child contact under a court-ordered Parenting Plan. Oyler testified as to the difficulties he encountered in securing his parenting contact over time. McLaughlin also testified to difficulties in working with Lalicker. From the testimony of Oyler McLaughlin, and Braun, the jury could reasonably have found that Lalicker knew she had no right to parent L.L. on the weekend of April 14, 2018. Additionally, Lalicker's actions support such a finding. Lalicker clearly knew Oyler was to parent L.L. the April 14, 2018 weekend or there would have been no need for her to seek a court order to switch weekends. Lalicker failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial