State of Montana v. Anthony Scott

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court held that Anthony Scott’s 1994 federal bank robbery conviction was not, on the record presented, reasonably equivalent to Montana robbery for purposes of establishing a violent-offense predicate under Montana’s persistent felony offender statute. The court also concluded that the State had not presented evidence showing that the federal conviction involved violent conduct. The court reversed the persistent felony offender designation and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. A federal bank robbery conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is not, on its face, reasonably equivalent to Montana robbery under § 45-5-401, MCA, because the federal statute encompasses nonviolent conduct involving entry into a bank with intent to commit any felony, while Montana robbery requires bodily injury, a threat or fear of immediate bodily injury, or the commission or threatened commission of another felony during a theft.
2. The State must prove that a prior conviction involved sexual or violent conduct when relying on that conviction as a predicate offense under the 2017 PFO statute; the bare fact of Scott's federal bank robbery conviction was insufficient on this silent record.
3. Scott did not waive his challenge to the legality of the PFO sentence because Montana courts may review an illegal sentence on appeal even when the defendant did not object at sentencing.
4. The District Court lacked statutory authority to designate Scott a persistent felony offender and impose the enhancement because the State did not establish a qualifying sexual or violent predicate offense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Scott's 1994 federal bank robbery conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) was reasonably equivalent to Montana robbery under § 45-5-401, MCA, and therefore qualified as a predicate violent offense under § 46-1-202(18), MCA.
2. Whether Scott could challenge the legality of his PFO designation on appeal despite having objected below to the timeliness of the PFO notice rather than expressly challenging the merits of the predicate conviction.
3. Whether the District Court had statutory authority to impose a PFO enhancement when the State had not proven that one of Scott's prior felony convictions was a sexual or violent offense under the 2017 PFO statute.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded