Sequential Sentencing Requirement for Enhanced Fifth DUI Sentences Under § 61-8-1008(2), MCA

Introduction

State v. Bloomer, 2025 MT 93 (Mont. 2025), considers whether a district court may impose the enhanced felony DUI sentence for a defendant’s fifth DUI offense under § 61-8-1008(2), MCA (2021), when it sentences the defendant’s fourth and fifth DUI offenses in the same hearing. The parties are the State of Montana (plaintiff/appellee) and Ryan Clinton Bloomer (defendant/appellant). The Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula County originally imposed concurrent sentences for Bloomer’s fourth DUI under pre-2022 law (§ 61-8-731, MCA) and for his fifth DUI under the new 2021 recodification (§ 61-8-1008(2), MCA). Bloomer appealed, arguing that the plain language of § 61-8-1008(2) requires a prior sentencing under § 61-8-1008(1) before triggering the enhanced fifth-offense penalty.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Montana, in an opinion by Justice Beth Baker, reversed the district court’s sentencing for the fifth DUI. It held that under § 61-8-1008(2), a defendant must have been “previously sentenced under” § 61-8-1008(1)(a)(i) or (1)(a)(ii) before the heightened penalty can apply. Because Bloomer’s fourth and fifth DUI sentences were imposed contemporaneously, he had not been “previously sentenced” for the fourth offense under the new statute. Consequently, the fifth-offense sentence under § 61-8-1008(2) was unlawful. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing under § 61-8-1008(1), MCA.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Running Wolf (State v. Running Wolf, 2020 MT 24): Interpreted substantively identical language in § 46-18-501, MCA (2015) regarding persistent felony offenders. The Court held that simultaneous sentencing cannot satisfy the “previously convicted” requirement, establishing a binding precedent for the meaning of “previously sentenced under.”
• Ex parte Klune (74 Mont. 332, 240 P. 286 (1925)): Applied the canon that ambiguities in statutory amendments should be construed to harmonize with the overall purpose of the act. The State invoked Klune to argue for a reading that would preserve escalating penalties for repeat DUI offenders.
• Gibbons (State v. Gibbons, 2024 MT 63) and Webb (State v. Webb, 2005 MT 5): Established that statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo and that clear, unambiguous language controls.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps:

1. Plain-Language Analysis: The phrase “previously sentenced under § 61-8-1008(1)(a)(i) or (1)(a)(ii)” is clear and unambiguous. Under Montana precedent, no further interpretation is needed if the statute’s language is clear.
2. Avoiding Absurd Results: Although the State argued for a holistic reading to preserve the legislative goal of escalating penalties, the Court found that ignoring the plain text would contravene § 1-2-101, MCA, by inserting omitted words or defeating the statute’s literal command.
3. Binding Precedent: Running Wolf interpreted identical terms (“previously convicted of”) in the felony DUI context and barred simultaneous sentencing from satisfying the predicate requirement. The Court applied that precedent directly.

Impact

This decision clarifies that enhanced DUI sentencing tiers under the 2021 recodification cannot be triggered by concurrent or single-hearing sentences. Trial courts must impose and complete sentencing under the fourth-offense statute (either § 61-8-1008(1)(a)(i) or (1)(a)(ii)) before utilizing § 61-8-1008(2) for the fifth offense. Going forward:

• Defendants and counsel must ensure that sentencing hearings are staggered when multiple DUI convictions exist, or explicitly address how prior sentences qualify under the statutory trigger.
• Prosecutors should draft charging documents and sentencing recommendations with attention to the sequential requirement to avoid remands for unlawful sentences.
• The Legislature may consider clarifying or amending § 61-8-1008 to address simultaneous sentencing scenarios if it did not intend the sequential requirement.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Recodification”: The process of reorganizing and renumbering existing statutes without substantive change—here, shifting felony DUI provisions from § 61-8-731 (2019) to § 61-8-1008 (2021) and amending penalties.
• “Predicate Offense / Predicate Sentence”: A prior conviction and completed sentence that serve as the legal basis to increase penalties for subsequent offenses.
• “Plain-Language Canon”: A rule of statutory interpretation that, when a statute’s text is clear and unambiguous, courts must apply its ordinary meaning without reading in extra requirements or exceptions.

Conclusion

State v. Bloomer establishes that under § 61-8-1008(2), MCA, the heightened penalty for a fifth DUI conviction applies only if the defendant has been previously sentenced for a fourth DUI under § 61-8-1008(1). Simultaneous sentencing for multiple DUI offenses does not satisfy this requirement. The decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory text in sentencing and confirms the sequential sentencing procedure for felony DUI enhancements in Montana.