# State v. Garrymore

> Montana Supreme Court · October 2, 2006 · 334 Mont. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511552

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASON LUCAS GARRYMORE, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 2, 2006
- **Citations:** 334 Mont. 1; 145 P.3d 946; 2006 MT 245; 2006 Mont. LEXIS 468
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cotter
- **Judges:** Jim Rice
- **Cited by:** 54 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511552

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that Garrymore’s argument under Article II, Sections 24 and 26 was “too undeveloped to undertake a distinctive application of state constitutional principles”
- applying Lenihan exception to unpreserved objection that statutorily authorized parole restriction violated § 46-1-401, MCA, and related federal and state constitutional rights
- declining to address argument that was “too undeveloped to undertake a distinctive application of state constitutional principles”

## Opinion text

JUSTICE COTTER,
specially concurring.
¶151 I concur in Justice Nelson’s conclusion that now, rather than later, is an appropriate time to clear up the inconsistencies in our Lenihan jurisprudence. Therefore, I join in the discussion and proposed resolution set forth in ¶¶ 45-106 of Justice Nelson’s Special Concurrence. I write separately to note that I concurred with the Court’s resolution in State v. Micklon, 2003 MT 45 , 314 Mont. 291 , 65 P.3d 559 , on the grounds that since it was Micklon who initiated the request for leniency as to the restitution requirements, he should not now be heard to quarrel with the result. I still believe this is so. However, to the extent that our decision in Micklon might be construed to preclude a Lenihan challenge under other circumstances, I would agree that the conclusion reached by Justice Nelson in ¶ 101 is legally correct.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511552. Public record. Not legal advice.