No Ex Post Facto Relief Where Duty Pre‑Existed 2007 SVORA: Waiver by Unconditional Plea and Direct‑Appeal Bar Reaffirmed

Benton v. State, 2025 MT 191N (Mont. Aug. 26, 2025) — Memorandum opinion, noncitable under IOR § I(3)(c)

Introduction

This commentary examines the Montana Supreme Court’s memorandum decision in Benton v. State, affirming the summary dismissal with prejudice of a postconviction relief (PCR) petition challenging a 2022 failure-to-register conviction. Although the Court issued a nonprecedential memorandum opinion, its analysis offers a clear application of settled Montana law in three recurring areas:

• Waiver of nonjurisdictional and constitutional claims by an unconditional guilty plea;
• The statutory bar against using postconviction proceedings as a substitute for direct appeal; and
• The limited reach of State v. Hinman’s ex post facto holding regarding the 2007 amendments to Montana’s Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA).

Petitioner Mark Eugene Benton, proceeding pro se, argued that because his underlying sex offense dated to 2005, Hinman limited his registration duty to 10 years, rendering his 2022 conviction for failure to register unconstitutional as an ex post facto punishment. The District Court summarily dismissed his PCR petition on procedural and merits grounds; the Supreme Court affirmed on multiple, independent bases.

Summary of the Judgment

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s dismissal with prejudice of Benton’s PCR petition. The Court held:

• Waiver by guilty plea: Benton’s unconditional guilty plea to the 2022 failure-to-register charge waived nonjurisdictional defects and constitutional challenges, including his ex post facto claim (citing State v. Pavey).
• Postconviction bar: Because Benton did not directly appeal his 2022 conviction, his claims were procedurally barred under § 46-21-105(2), MCA, which precludes using PCR to litigate issues that could have been raised on direct appeal (citing State v. Osborne).
• Merits: Under the applicable 2003 SVORA provisions, Benton had a lifetime duty to register and to report address changes; the State did not rely on retroactive application of the 2007 amendments. Hinman therefore did not apply, and his 2022 conviction was not illegal.
• Procedural deficiencies: The PCR petition was unverified and unsupported by affidavits or exhibits as required by §§ 46-21-103 and -104, MCA, justifying summary dismissal without a hearing under § 46-21-201(1)(a), MCA, and Herman v. State.
• Additional claims forfeited and meritless: Benton’s prosecutorial misconduct claim (first raised in a later “status” motion) and his ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim (raised for the first time in his appellate reply brief) were barred under § 46-21-105(2), MCA, and, in any event, failed on the merits because the underlying conviction was lawful.

The Court reviewed the denial of PCR for clearly erroneous factual findings and correctness of legal conclusions (Griffin v. State), and the ex post facto claim de novo (Hinman). Finding the case controlled by settled law, the Court issued a memorandum opinion under its Internal Operating Rules.

Case Background

• 2005: Benton was convicted of felony incest, designated a Level 2 sexual offender, and received a 20-year sentence with 10 years suspended.
• 2016: Suspended sentence revoked; resentenced to 10 years DOC with 5 suspended.
• 2021: Charged with failure to register as a sex offender, alleging he failed to register his current address since at least February 2020 under § 46-23-504, MCA (2003).
• 2022: Pled guilty (unconditionally) to failure to register; sentenced in December 2022. In January 2023, sentenced on a revocation.
• 2023: Filed unverified PCR petition in October arguing Hinman limited his duty to 10 years; filed additional post-judgment motions that were presumed denied under M. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). He did not appeal his 2022 conviction or denials of those motions.
• 2024: Sought supervisory control; the Court denied, noting he could appeal the District Court’s forthcoming decision. In October, the District Court summarily dismissed the PCR petition with prejudice.
• 2025: The Supreme Court affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• State v. Hinman, 2023 MT 116, 412 Mont. 434, 530 P.3d 1271. Held that the 2007 SVORA amendments could not be applied retroactively to offenders whose crimes predated those amendments, as to punitive aspects. The Court distinguished Hinman because Benton’s duties—lifelong registration and address updates—existed under the 2003 SVORA, and the charge for failing to register rested on those pre‑2007 obligations.
• State v. Pavey, 2010 MT 104, 356 Mont. 248, 231 P.3d 1104. An unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects, including constitutional claims like ex post facto challenges. This was dispositive of Benton’s principal claim.
• State v. Osborne, 2005 MT 264, 329 Mont. 95, 124 P.3d 1085. Reinforces § 46-21-105(2), MCA: PCR may not be used as a substitute for direct appeal. Benton’s failure to appeal his 2022 conviction barred his PCR claims.
• Griffin v. State, 2003 MT 267, 317 Mont. 457, 77 P.3d 54. Standard of review for PCR denials (clear error for facts, correctness for law).
• Herman v. State, 2006 MT 7, 330 Mont. 267, 127 P.3d 422. Confirms that noncompliant PCR petitions may be summarily dismissed without evidentiary hearing where the record conclusively shows no entitlement to relief.
• State v. Mount, 2003 MT 275, 317 Mont. 481, 78 P.3d 829; State v. Clark, 2025 MT 87, 421 Mont. 429, 567 P.3d 941. Support the reading that, under the pre‑2007 SVORA, designated offenders had enduring, often lifetime, duties to register and report, including address updates.
• State v. Sedler, 2020 MT 248, 401 Mont. 437, 473 P.3d 406. Found aspects of the violent offender registration relief petition process unconstitutional; inapplicable to sexual offenders, as the Court noted when Benton invoked Sedler in an addendum filing.
• Statutes: §§ 46-23-504 through -507, MCA (2003) (registration and reporting duties, including lifetime reporting under § 46-23-506(1) for qualifying offenders, and limited relief mechanisms under § 46-23-506(3) and (5)); §§ 46-21-103, -104, -105, -201, MCA (PCR pleading requirements, direct-appeal substitution bar, and summary dismissal).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s rationale proceeds along four independent, mutually reinforcing lines:

1. Waiver by unconditional guilty plea. Benton’s 2022 plea was unconditional. Under Pavey, an unconditional plea waives nonjurisdictional claims, including constitutional challenges to the charge such as ex post facto, probable cause defects, or asserted judicial bias in issuing warrants. The Court treated Benton’s ex post facto theory as waived at the threshold.
2. PCR is not a substitute for appeal. Section 46-21-105(2), MCA, bars raising via PCR any issue that could have been pursued on direct appeal. Benton did not appeal his 2022 conviction or the denial of his post‑judgment motions (presumed denied under M. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1)). The Court applied Osborne to enforce this procedural bar.
3. Merits: No ex post facto violation under Hinman. Hinman limits retroactive application of the 2007 SVORA amendments. Benton’s duty to register and update his address derived from the 2003 SVORA—duties already in force by the time of his 2005 conviction. Because the State charged him for violating pre‑existing duties, no retroactivity problem existed; Hinman simply did not apply. The Court emphasized that Benton was obligated to “regularly” register and report address changes for life under §§ 46-23-504 to -506, MCA (2003), and that he failed to do so after February 2020.
4. Pleading defects justify summary dismissal. Benton’s PCR petition lacked verification and supporting affidavits or exhibits as required by §§ 46-21-103 and -104, MCA. Under § 46-21-201(1)(a), MCA, and Herman, the court may summarily dismiss where the record conclusively shows no entitlement to relief. The District Court did so, and the Supreme Court found no error.

As to ancillary claims, the Court explained that prosecutorial misconduct, first raised in a subsequent “status” motion, and IAC, first raised in an appellate reply brief, were both procedurally barred by § 46-21-105(2), MCA. The Court further observed that, even on the merits, these claims would fail because Benton’s underlying conviction was lawful under the 2003 SVORA.

Impact and Practical Significance

Although noncitable, the decision provides a clear, practical blueprint of how Montana courts will handle similar failure-to-register PCR claims:

• Hinman has limits: Defendants cannot leverage Hinman to attack failure-to-register prosecutions grounded in duties that existed before the 2007 SVORA amendments. The ex post facto analysis turns on whether the State actually applied post‑2007 punitive changes retroactively. If the charge rests on pre‑2007 obligations, Hinman offers no relief.
• Plea decisions are critical: An unconditional guilty plea forecloses later constitutional challenges, including ex post facto and probable cause arguments. Where a defendant seeks to preserve dispositive constitutional issues, a conditional plea (if permitted) or litigating pretrial motions and proceeding to trial (followed by appeal) may be the only viable paths.
• Direct appeal remains the primary vehicle: Montana’s PCR framework enforces strict channeling—record‑based claims that could be raised on direct appeal cannot be reinvented as PCR claims. Timely appeal is essential.
• PCR pleading discipline matters: Verification, supporting affidavits, and proper service are not formalities. Noncompliance invites summary dismissal without hearing.
• Registration duties under the 2003 SVORA persist: For offenders like Benton whose underlying sex offenses predate 2007, lifetime registration and address‑update duties often apply under the 2003 law, with limited, statutorily defined avenues for relief. Practitioners should analyze the offender’s designation, the applicable statutory text at the time of the qualifying offense, and any available relief provisions under § 46-23-506(3) and (5), MCA (2003).

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Ex post facto laws: The Constitution forbids laws that retroactively increase punishment for past conduct. In registration contexts, if the State applies new, more burdensome, punitive requirements enacted after the offense, that can violate the ex post facto clause. Hinman found that certain 2007 SVORA changes could not be retroactively applied. But if the State prosecutes a failure to comply with duties that already existed at the time of the original offense (as here), no ex post facto problem arises.
• Unconditional guilty plea waiver: By pleading guilty without reserving issues, a defendant admits the charge and waives nonjurisdictional challenges (such as probable cause defects, constitutional claims, and most procedural irregularities). Only very narrow claims—typically jurisdictional or those attacking the voluntariness of the plea itself—survive.
• Postconviction relief vs. direct appeal: PCR is not a second chance at appeal. If an issue could have been raised on direct appeal (for example, a record‑based constitutional claim), § 46-21-105(2), MCA, bars re-raising it in PCR. PCR is generally reserved for claims requiring facts outside the trial record (like certain IAC claims), but those must still be timely and properly pled.
• Summary dismissal of PCR petitions: Courts can dismiss a PCR petition without a hearing when the petition is procedurally deficient or when the case record shows the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Verification and supporting affidavits are mandatory under Montana’s PCR statutes.
• SVORA (2003 vs. 2007): Montana’s 2003 SVORA imposed significant duties on sexual offenders—initial registration, regular updates, and address‑change notifications—often for life, depending on classification. In 2007, the Legislature amended SVORA; Hinman restricts retroactive use of those amendments. The key question is which set of duties the State is enforcing.
• Supervisory control: An extraordinary writ used sparingly by the Montana Supreme Court. It is not a substitute for appeal; it is typically reserved for urgent issues of statewide importance or purely legal questions where the lower court’s error is obvious. Benton’s request for supervisory control was declined because he had an adequate remedy by appeal from the District Court’s decision.

Key Takeaways

• Hinman does not invalidate prosecutions for failing to comply with SVORA duties that existed before 2007; identifying the precise statutory duty and its vintage is essential.
• An unconditional guilty plea waives ex post facto and other nonjurisdictional constitutional claims. To preserve such claims, consider a conditional plea or litigate and appeal.
• PCR cannot replace a direct appeal. Record‑based claims—like ex post facto arguments evident on the face of the statutes—must be pursued on direct review.
• PCR petitions must be verified and supported by affidavits or documents; otherwise, they are susceptible to summary dismissal without hearing.
• Claims raised for the first time in a status motion or in an appellate reply brief are almost always procedurally barred.

Conclusion

In Benton v. State, the Montana Supreme Court—through a nonprecedential memorandum opinion—reaffirmed three bedrock principles: (1) unconditional guilty pleas waive nonjurisdictional challenges, including ex post facto claims; (2) § 46-21-105(2), MCA, bars raising via PCR issues that could have been raised on direct appeal; and (3) Hinman’s ex post facto rule limits retroactive application of the 2007 SVORA amendments but does not aid defendants whose failure‑to‑register prosecutions rest on duties imposed by the 2003 SVORA. The case also underscores the importance of PCR pleading requirements and the courts’ authority to summarily dismiss deficient petitions. Collectively, these principles provide practitioners and litigants with a clear roadmap for litigating (and preserving) registration‑related challenges in Montana criminal practice, even though Benton itself is noncitable under the Court’s Internal Operating Rules.