State of Montana v. Bryan Dean LeMay

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed Bryan Dean LeMay's convictions and sentences arising from three criminal cases involving DUI, motorcycle licensing, and offenses against a peace officer. The court rejected claims of outrageous government conduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary nolo contendere pleas, lack of particularized suspicion for an investigative stop, and lack of state criminal jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. The alleged harassment and racial profiling did not constitute outrageous government conduct warranting dismissal because LeMay did not show that government agents manufactured his crimes, generated new crimes for purposes of prosecution, or violated constitutional rights related to the charged offenses.
2. LeMay failed to establish ineffective assistance because the record showed that counsel pursued the outrageous-conduct claim and LeMay did not demonstrate deficient performance or a reasonable probability of a different result.
3. The District Court properly denied withdrawal of LeMay's nolo contendere pleas because he understood their consequences, entered them voluntarily, and failed to establish good cause for withdrawal.
4. The officer had particularized suspicion to stop LeMay because he observed LeMay cross double-yellow lines and make a turn producing a 180-degree change in direction, and the circumstances objectively suggested a traffic violation.
5. Montana courts had criminal jurisdiction because the offenses were committed in Fairview or Sidney, Montana, locations the record established were not in Indian Country.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court erred by denying LeMay's motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct based on alleged harassment and racial profiling.
2. Whether LeMay received ineffective assistance of counsel.
3. Whether the District Court erred by denying LeMay's motion to withdraw his nolo contendere pleas.
4. Whether the District Court erred by denying LeMay's motion to suppress for lack of particularized suspicion to conduct an investigative stop.
5. Whether the District Court erred by denying LeMay's motion to dismiss for lack of state criminal jurisdiction because the charged offenses allegedly occurred in Indian Country.

Disposition

affirmed