State v. Hill - Speedy Trial Violation Claim Affirmed

Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Combined Opinion

by Baker](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10846367/state-v-hill/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 21, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Hill

Montana Supreme Court

• Citations: 2026 MT 84
• Docket Number: DA 23-0641
• Nature of Suit: Direct Appeal

• Disposition: AFFIRMED

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (14.5K)

• PDF

Disposition

AFFIRMED

Combined Opinion

by Beth Baker

04/21/2026

DA 23-0641
Case Number: DA 23-0641

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2026 MT 84

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

THOMAS JERRY HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DC-21-613
Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

James M. Siegman, Attorney at Law, Jackson, Mississippi

For Appellee:

Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Christine Hutchison,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Matt Jennings, Missoula County Attorney, Brittany Williams, Deputy
County Attorney, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: February 25, 2026

Decided: April 21, 2026

Filed:

---

Clerk
Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Thomas Jerry Hill appeals his conviction of attempted robbery from the Fourth

Judicial District Court upon his plea of guilty. At his change of plea hearing, Hill raised

concern about a speedy trial violation and said he wanted to “keep that on record.” When

the State pointed out that no such motion had been filed, the District Court noted Hill’s

concern but said it would not receive briefs on the issue. Hill alleges that the District

Court’s refusal to accept briefs was an abuse of discretion and, alternatively, if not

preserved, that we should review his claim for plain error. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In October 2021, Hill was arrested and appeared before the Missoula County Justice

Court on charges of robbery and disorderly conduct. He was held at Montana State

Hospital (MSH) and later transferred to the Missoula County Detention Facility (MCDF).

At his arraignment hearing on November 8, 2021, Hill’s counsel raised concerns about his

fitness to stand trial. In December 2021, defense counsel reported to the court that

providers found Hill unfit to proceed. Defense counsel requested a 90-day evaluation. The

court ordered that MSH evaluate Hill and stayed proceedings pending MSH’s mental

health evaluation. The District Court ordered transport from MCDF once a bed became

available at MSH.

¶3 MSH admitted Hill in July 2022 and evaluated him the following month. In

September 2022, MSH completed the requested mental health evaluation. MSH found Hill

unfit to proceed, noting that a major impediment was his refusal to take psychotropic

2
medication. That same month, the State moved for a Sell hearing. See Sell v. United States,

539 U.S. 166, 123 S. Ct. 2174 (2003). In October 2022, the District Court granted the

State’s motion, extending Hill’s stay at MSH an additional 90 days and authorizing

involuntary administration of medication. In January 2023, providers reported that Hill

was still unfit to stand trial, leading the court to extend his commitment for another 90

days.

¶4 At a status hearing held on April 20, 2023, defense counsel reported that Hill was

fit to proceed to trial. The State informed the court that it provided an omnibus form and

plea offer to Hill and requested a continuance to work on resolution of the plea. At Hill’s

scheduled omnibus hearing on June 21, 2023, the court remarked that from its review of

the record, the court had not held an arraignment due to Hill’s immediate and apparent

fitness issues. The court arraigned Hill, and Hill pleaded not guilty to both counts against

him.

¶5 On July 6, 2023, the parties reached a plea agreement. The State agreed to dismiss

Count II’s charge of disorderly conduct and to amend Count I from a charge of robbery to

attempted robbery, to which Hill agreed to plead guilty. At the change of plea hearing held

that same day, Hill informed the court that he had read and signed the plea agreement. The

following exchange ensued:

[Court]: Do you have any outstanding concerns or issues about the case?

[Hill]: I believe I had a speedy trial violation. I want to keep that on record.

[Court]: Okay. But is there some provision in the plea agreement to raise this
after change of plea to the [c]ourt, the Supreme Court, or what?

3
[State]: Judge, I haven’t had this issue come up with a speedy trial violation.
I’ve had instances where evidentiary issues have been briefed and defendants
have been ruled against and I have been willing to allow them to appeal that
issue. But given that this hasn’t been briefed at this level, I am not certain
how that would work reserving that right. But if the Defendant would like to
just have that for the record and pursue that post-disposition, I don’t have an
objection to that. My motion in limine laid out the procedural history of this
case quite well. So I don’t have an objection to that if he wants to just note
that for the record.

[Court]: So we are noting it for the record. There will be no briefs submitted
to me. That’s not to say that you can’t possibly raise it after sentencing.

Defense counsel did not lodge any objections, nor did counsel file any motions regarding

Hill’s statements. Hill admitted to the facts alleged, and the court accepted the plea as

voluntary, intelligent, and knowing and entered the plea. The District Court sentenced Hill

on September 6, 2023, to ten years with the Department of Public Health and Human

Services, with a stipulated credit of 688 days.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶6 This Court reviews trial administration issues for abuse of discretion. State v.

Rossbach, 2022 MT 2, ¶ 9, 407 Mont. 55, 501 P.3d 914. We generally will not review

issues raised for the first time on appeal. State v. George, 2020 MT 56, ¶ 4, 399 Mont.

173, 459 P.3d 854. Within its discretion, this Court may review unpreserved claims in

criminal cases under the plain-error doctrine. George, ¶ 4. Such review is employed

“sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of circumstances of each case.”

George, ¶ 5 (internal quotations omitted; citation omitted). The defendant may not simply

request plain-error review but, instead, bears the burden of “firmly convincing this Court”

that the error affects a fundamental right and “review is necessary to prevent a manifest

4
miscarriage of justice or that failure to review the claim may leave unsettled the question

of fundamental fairness of the proceedings or may compromise the integrity of the judicial

process.” George, ¶ 5 (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

¶7 A defendant “waives the right to appeal all nonjurisdictional defects upon

voluntarily and knowingly entering a guilty plea, including claims of constitutional

violation which may have occurred prior to the plea.” State v. Violette, 2009 MT 19, ¶ 16,

349 Mont. 81, 201 P.3d 804 (citation omitted). Once entered, a defendant’s challenge to

trial proceedings “may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of his plea.”

Violette, ¶ 16 (citation omitted). Though § 46-12-204, MCA, allows the defendant to

reserve the right to appeal certain pre-trial rulings, there must “be an adverse ruling on the

motion prior to the plea.” Violette, ¶ 16.

¶8 In Violette, at the change of plea hearing, the defendant made an oral motion to

dismiss the case based on a speedy trial violation but also agreed to have the district court

accept the plea. Violette, ¶ 15. After allowing briefing on the motion, the district court

denied the defendant’s speedy trial motion. Violette, ¶ 15. The defendant challenged the

court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. Violette, ¶ 11. We held

that the defendant did not properly preserve the speedy trial issue. Violette, ¶¶ 15-16. We

explained that “[a]lthough the District Court allowed [the defendant] to enter a plea and

then brief and argue the denial of a speedy trial, the parties and the courts cannot devise

5
procedures not contemplated by the rules of criminal and appellate procedure.” Violette,

¶¶ 15-17. The issue was not properly preserved. Violette, ¶ 16.

¶9 The court here afforded Hill a courtesy when it allowed him to place the speedy trial

issue “on the record” for potential consideration at some point in the future. On appeal,

Hill argues that the District Court refused briefing on his speedy trial motion. But the court

cannot ignore the rules of criminal and appellate procedure to allow for that briefing.

Because Hill signed the plea agreement and agreed to entry of a guilty plea, he waived his

speedy trial issue. Hill needed to raise the claim by appropriate motion before pleading

guilty, receive an adverse ruling, and reserve his claim for appeal to properly raise it for

direct appellate review. The State alluded to this when it stated, “I’m not certain how that

would work reserving that right.” After the court’s discussion with the State, Hill did not

ask for a continuance or otherwise attempt to submit briefing on the speedy trial issue

before the court accepted the plea. Instead, Hill admitted to the material facts, provided an

intelligent and voluntary plea, and agreed that the court should accept his plea of guilty.

“Noting it for the record” was insufficient to preserve the speedy trial issue for appellate

review.

¶10 We hold that Hill has failed to meet his heavy burden to justify this Court’s

plain-error review. The District Court’s acceptance of Hill’s plea and imposition of

sentence without ruling on the speedy trial issue was not a manifest miscarriage of justice.

The District Court appropriately stayed proceedings until Hill was fit and then entered

Hill’s intelligent, knowing, and voluntary plea. The parties stipulated to and the court

6
credited Hill with the time spent evaluating and attaining Hill’s fitness. We are not

persuaded that the District Court’s handling of Hill’s speedy trial comment compromised

the fundamental fairness or integrity of Hill’s proceedings. George, ¶ 5 (citations omitted).

CONCLUSION

¶11 Having reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, we conclude that Hill has not

met his burden of persuasion. We decline to exercise plain-error review. The District

Court’s judgment is affirmed.

/S/ BETH BAKER

We Concur:

/S/ CORY J. SWANSON
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ JIM RICE

7