State v. King

2025 MT 208N

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: September 9, 2025
• Docket: DA 24-0291
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

09/09/2025

DA 24-0291 Case Number: DA 24-0291

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2025 MT 208N

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LARRY CLAY KING,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, In and For the County of Sanders, Cause No. DC-23-34 Honorable Molly Owen, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

James C. Murnion, Murnion Law, Missoula, Montana

For Appellee:

Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Selene Koepke, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Jania Hatfield, Sanders County Attorney, Thompson Falls, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: August 13, 2025

Decided: September 9, 2025

Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶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

2 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.

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

We Concur:

/S/ KATHERINE M BIDEGARAY /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ JIM RICE