State v. M. Thomas

Opinion

07/21/2026

DA 25-0166 Case Number: DA 25-0166

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2026 MT 162N

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MARLON DAUNTE THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DC 16-1157 Honorable Rod Souza, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Marlon Daunte Thomas, Self-Represented, Richmond, California

For Appellee:

Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Jeff Sealey, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Scott D. Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney, Alexander Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: June 3, 2026 Decided: July 21, 2026

Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, we decide this case by memorandum opinion. It 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 Marlon Daunte Thomas appeals the Thirteenth Judicial District Court’s denial of

his motion for a new trial based upon alleged errors in the jury selection process. The

District Court denied his motion as untimely. We affirm.

¶3 On November 16, 2016, the State charged Thomas with one count of felony

aggravated promotion of prostitution and one count of felony promotion of prostitution.

Sections 45-5-602, -603, MCA. On November 7, 2017, Yellowstone County’s Deputy

Jury Commissioner Bernie Wahl selected the jury pool for Thomas’s jury trial. On

November 27, 2017, counsel conducted voir dire and selected the jury panel. Later that

day, Thomas’s four-day trial began. Thomas did not raise an objection to the jury selection

process prior to trial. The jury found Thomas guilty of the charges against him on

November 30, 2017. Thomas appealed, raising only an evidentiary claim. We affirmed

the conviction. See State v. Thomas, 2020 MT 281, 402 Mont. 62, 476 P.3d 26.

¶4 On March 11, 2024, Thomas filed a motion for a new trial, challenging for the first

time the jury selection process under § 3-15-405, MCA. The State responded, attaching an

affidavit from Wahl. The State conceded that the Yellowstone County Clerk of Court did

not certify nonresponsive jurors to the sheriff, preventing the sheriff from attempting

2 personal service in accordance with § 3-15-405, MCA. The court denied Thomas’s motion

for a new trial as untimely. The court also determined that Thomas did not meet the

“interest of justice” exception to time-barred motions for a new trial.

¶5 We review a trial’s court denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.

State v. Hillious, 2025 MT 53, ¶ 13, 421 Mont. 72, 565 P.3d 1218.

¶6 At the time of Thomas’s trial, § 3-15-405, MCA (2017), provided in pertinent part,

“If a person fails to respond to the notice [that he or she has been drawn as a juror], the

clerk shall certify the failure to the sheriff, who shall serve the notice personally on the

person and make reasonable efforts to require the person to respond to the notice.” In

Hillious, the defendant challenged the jury selection process under the same statutory

language. There, the clerk of court failed to certify the nonresponders to the sheriff to

personally serve notice of jury duty in contravention of § 3-15-405, MCA. Hillious,

¶¶ 8-11. This Court concluded that Hillious failed to establish that the error affected the

“random selection of his jury or that jurors’ exclusions were based on subjective criteria.”

Hillious, ¶¶ 30-31. We thus held that the errors were “technical and harmless” rather than

structural as alleged. Hillious, ¶¶ 30-31.

¶7 Except for good cause shown, a party must object to the jury selection process

“at least 5 days prior to the start of the trial for which the jury is impaneled.”

Section 46-16-112, MCA. Hillious challenged the jury selection process in a motion for a

new trial 630 days after the jury issued its verdict. Hillious, ¶¶ 7, 34. We recognized in

Hillious that the time requirement for challenging jury selection under § 46-16-112, MCA,

3 is strictly enforced and made no exception in that case. Hillious, ¶¶ 39, 42; see also State

v. Donahue, 2025 MT 144, ¶ 37, 423 Mont. 1, 571 P.3d 1068 (citations omitted).

¶8 Similar to Hillious, Thomas challenges the jury selection process based on the

county clerk’s failure to certify nonresponders to the sheriff to then be personally served

as required by § 3-15-405, MCA. Hillious, ¶¶ 8-11. Also like in Hillious, Thomas fails to

establish that the error affected the “random selection of his jury or that juror exclusions

were based on subjective criteria.” Hillious, ¶¶ 30-31. As such, the technical error does

not “warrant a finding of good cause to deviate from the provided time constraint as there

was substantial compliance with the jury selection statutes” in Thomas’s trial. Hillious,

¶ 42. Without a good cause showing under § 46-16-112, MCA, we consequently do not

discuss the “interest of justice” exception to the time bar on motions for a new trial.

See Hillious, ¶ 42.

¶9 On appeal, Thomas raises several constitutional and statutory challenges that he did

not present to the District Court. We do not address these arguments “in light of our

longstanding rule that we generally do not address issues raised for the first time on

appeal.” State v. Longfellow, 2008 MT 343, ¶ 19, 346 Mont. 286, 194 P.3d 694 (citation

omitted). He has not met his burden for plain-error review. State v. Rodriguez, 2021 MT

65, ¶ 20, 403 Mont. 360, 483 P.3d 1080.

¶10 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the

Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of

4 applicable standards of review. The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it

denied Thomas’s motion for a new trial as untimely.

/S/ BETH BAKER

We Concur:

/S/ CORY J. SWANSON /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON