STATE OF MONTANA v. LARRY CLAY KING (2025)

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion, 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 Larry Clay King appeals from the Twentieth Judicial District Court's March 12, 2024 judgment sentencing him to ten years with four years suspended and fining him $5,000 pursuant to § 61-8-1008(2), MCA, upon his conviction for Driving Under the Influence, fifth or subsequent offense. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

¶3 With respect to the $5,000 fine, King argues that the District Court did not orally pronounce the fine at sentencing and it should therefore be stricken from the written judgment. On appeal, the State agrees that an amended judgment should be issued that does not include the $5,000 fine.

¶4 With respect to his incarceration sentence, King argues the District Court erred by sentencing him pursuant to § 61-8-1008(2), MCA, because the statute's plain language only allows a court to sentence a defendant pursuant to § 61-8-1008(2), MCA, if the defendant has been previously sentenced under § 61-8-1008(1)(a)(i) or (1)(a)(ii), which King has not. Five days after King filed his opening brief on appeal, we issued our Opinion in State v. Bloomer, 2025 MT 93, 421 Mont. 481, 568 P.3d 513. In his reply brief, King acknowledges that Bloomer addresses “the identical legal issue presented” in this case. We rejected King's argument in Bloomer. “Unless it appears that our interpretation is manifestly wrong, we will not overrule precedent regarding the construction of statutory language.” State v. Spagnolo, 2022 MT 228, ¶ 8, 410 Mont. 457, 520 P.3d 330 (citation omitted). Although King summarily asserts that “Bloomer was wrongfully decided,” he does not assert, much less argue, that the Opinion was manifestly wrong.

¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent or modify existing precedent. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for the District Court to amend its judgment to strike the $5,000 fine.

JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

We Concur: KATHERINE M BIDEGARAY BETH BAKER LAURIE McKINNON JIM RICE