No 

No. 98-524

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1999 MT 45N

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v.

CHRISTOPHER COTE, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade,

Honorable Marge Johnson, Judge Presiding.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-524%20Opinion.htm (1 of 4)4/11/2007 8:59:38 AM
No 

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Carl B. Jensen, Jr., Great Falls, Montana

For Respondent:

Honorable Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Cregg W. Coughlin,

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Brant S. Light, County Attorney; Susan Weber, Deputy County 

Attorney, Great Falls, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: January 8, 1999

Decided: March 16, 1999

Filed:

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-524%20Opinion.htm (2 of 4)4/11/2007 8:59:38 AM
No 

__________________________________________

Clerk

Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1. Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal 

Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent but shall be 

filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be 

reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter 

Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases 

issued by this Court. 

¶2. Christopher Cote appeals his sentencing by the Eighth Judicial District Court, 

Cascade County, for the offense of felony forgery. We affirm.

¶3. The issues are:

¶4. 1. Whether the District Court erred by failing to honor its offer allowing Cote to 

withdraw his plea.

¶5. 2. Whether the court abandoned its neutrality when it convinced Cote to proceed 

with the sentencing after offering him the opportunity to withdraw his plea, which he 

accepted.

¶6. 3. Whether the prosecutor violated the plea bargain by her conduct at the 

sentencing hearing.

¶7. All three of Cote's issues are raised for the first time on appeal. The rule is wellestablished that, absent plain error, this Court will consider for review only those 

issues raised in the pleadings or otherwise before the district court. State v. Herrera, 

1998 MT 173, ¶¶ 17-18, ___ Mont. ___, ¶¶ 17-18, 962 P.2d 1180, ¶¶ 17-18, 55 St.Rep. 

703, ¶¶ 17-18.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-524%20Opinion.htm (3 of 4)4/11/2007 8:59:38 AM
No 

¶8. The transcript of Cote's sentencing hearing establishes that when he was offered 

an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea, Cote initially stated that he wished to 

withdraw his plea, but then reconsidered. Thereafter, he gave no notice to the 

District Court that he was dissatisfied with the imposition of sentence. Nor did he 

object that the court somehow failed to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. We 

will not address the challenge raised in Cote's first issue, because it is raised for the 

first time on appeal.

¶9. Similarly, nowhere in the District Court record does Cote raise any claim about 

any bias, prejudice, or lack of neutrality on the part of the District Court. Because he 

failed to bring this allegation to the attention of the District Court, we will not 

address Cote's second issue on appeal.

¶10. Likewise, as to Cote's third issue on appeal, Cote did not raise any objection to 

any of the prosecutor's comments during the plea hearing or allege a breach of the 

plea agreement below. This claim, too, has been waived and we will not consider it 

for the first time on appeal.

¶11. Affirmed. 

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

We concur:

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

/S/ JIM REGNIER 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-524%20Opinion.htm (4 of 4)4/11/2007 8:59:38 AM