NO. 95-231 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1996 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

ORIN SCOTT HOFMAN, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Ravalli, 

The Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

John M. Kading, Butte, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Pamela P. 

Collins, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, 

Montana; George H. Corn, Ravalli County Attorney, 

F-x* ?$ lton, Montana 

'I< ;;j ",*w>,~-I, 

h: 

Submitted on Briefs: December 7, 1995 

Decided: March 28, 1996 

Filed : ,,'.'i' ri i !S 1 i,'rE 
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr. delivered the Opinion of the Court 

Appellant, Orin Scott Hofman, was sentenced by the TwentyFirst Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, for aggravated 

assault, felony assault, and two misdemeanors, with the sentences 

to run concurrently. In addition, the defendant was designated as 

a persistent felony offender and a dangerous offender. Defendant 

appeals both his sentence and his designation as a dangerous 

offender. 

Affirmed. 

On appeal, defendant raises four issues which we restate as 

follows : 

1. Did the District Court err in designating Hofman a 

dangerous offender? 

2. Did the District Court err in ordering Hofman to undergo 

alcohol treatment? 

3. Did the District Court err in not stating the reasons why 

Hofman was designated a dangerous offender? 

4. Did the District Court err by failing to inform Hofman of 

the possible maximum penalties provided by law, including the 

effect of penalty enhancements and parole restrictions? 

FACTS 

On the night of December 12, 1993, officers responded to an 

emergency call at the home of defendant and Ms. Angela Raines. 

Earlier in the evening, defendant had been lying down on the couch 

when Raines' two young sons ran to play with him. Defendant struck 

the younger four-year old child and then attacked MS. Raines. 

2 
Defendant left the home but returned later. When he returned, MS. 

Raines refused to let him in. Defendant gained re-entry by 

breaking down the door, and, again, he attacked Ms. Raines. 

Officers responding to the call found Ms. Raines, who had a 

bloody nose, broken ribs, and multiple contusions and her son, who 

had a swollen cheek. Ms. Raines was taken to the hospital. After 

returning home, she discovered that $1,600 in cash was missing from 

her strongbox. 

Defendant was charged by information on December 22, 1993, 

with five felonies and two misdemeanors: Charge I, aggravated 

assault; Charge II, two counts of felony assault; Charge III, 

misdemeanor assault; Charge IV, aggravated burglary; Charge V, 

burglary; Charge VI, felony theft, and Charge VII, criminal 

mischief. Defendant entered a "not guilty plea" to all charges. On 

the same day, defendant signed a "Acknowledgment of Rights" form 

which was filed with the District Court. 

On January 12, 1994, defendant requested to withdraw his "not 

guilty" pleas pursuant to a plea arrangement with the State. On 

January 19, 1994, defendant entered a guilty plea to the charges of 

aggravated assault, felony and misdemeanor assault, and criminal 

mischief. The remaining charges were dismissed. Defendant was 

sentenced on February 16, 1994, to 20 years for aggravated assault, 

5 years for felony assault, 6 months for misdemeanor assault, and 

6 months for misdemeanor criminal mischief. The District Court 

designated defendant a persistent felony offender, as well as a 

dangerous offender. Defendant appeals. 

3 
ISSUE 1 

Did the District Court err in designating Hofman as a 

dangerous offender? 

Defendant argues the record does not contain substantial 

credible evidence to support his designation as a dangerous 

offender. He contends this designation should be removed as a 

matter of law, and that he should be designated as a nondangerous 

offender pursuant to § 46-18-404, MCA (1993)(repealed). 

The scope of our review on appeal is limited to those issues 

raised before the District Court. Section 46-20-104, MCA. A 

defendant's failure to object to an issue at the District Court 

bars the defendant from raising the issue on appeal. Sections 46- 

20-104 and 46-20-701, MCA; State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 

127, 151, 875 P.2d 307, 321. 

At the sentencing hearing, the County Attorney recommended to 

the court that defendant be designated a dangerous offender. At 

the conclusion of the hearing the Judge gave parties an opportunity 

to add anything to the record but there was nothing further from 

anyone. Defendant did not object to his designation as a dangerous 

offender. In order to preserve this issue on appeal, defendant had 

to object to this designation during the sentencing hearing. 

Section 46-20-104 (2), FICA; State v. Nelson (Mont. 1995), 52 St.Rep 

1069, 1072, 906 P.2d 663, 667. 

We conclude that defendant is barred from raising the issue of 

his designation as a dangerous offender on appeal. 
ISSUE 2 

Did the District Court err in ordering Hofman to undergo 

alcohol treatment? 

As in Issue 1, defendant failed to preserve this issue for 

appeal by failing to object at the time he was sentenced. On 

appeal, defendant does not assert an error that is prejudicial as 

to guilt or punishment and therefore he fails to meet the 

requirements of § 46-20-701, MCA. This Court will not consider 

this issue further. 

ISSUE 3 

Did the District Court err in not stating the reasons why 

Hofman had been designated a dangerous offender? 

Defendant alleges that his prior record, coupled with this 

offense and his apparent lack of rehabilitation, does not merit 

designation as a dangerous offender. Defendant further alleges 

that the record lacks the required "articulated reasons" for this 

designation. State v. Ford (1985), 218 Mont. 215, 221, 707 P.Zd 

16, 20. 

Upon review of the record, we conclude there is ample evidence 

supporting the designation. At the sentencing hearing, priox to 

designating defendant as a dangerous offender, the District Court 

stated its reasons for the sentence. The Judge referred to 

defendant's propensity for violence. In support of this, the court 

pointed out that Ms. Raines' injuries were extensive, that 

defendant had assaulted a four-year old boy, and that defendant had 

previously assaulted his mother. The court pointed out that 

5 
defendant had been given multiple opportunities in the past to 

"straighten himself out...none of [which] seem to have taken." 

These reasons were again set forth in the judgment issued on 

February 25, 1994. 

The record shows that the District Court stated its reasons 

for the defendant's designation as a dangerous offender. We affirm 

the District Court on this issue. 

ISSUE 4 

Did the District Court err by failing to inform Hofman of the 

possible maximum penalties provided by law, including the effect of 

the penalty enhancements and parole restrictions? 

As stated in Issue 1, the scope of our review on appeal is 

limited to those issues raised before the District Court and a 

defendant's failure to object to an issue at the District Court 

bars him from raising the issue on appeal. Nelson, 906 P.2d at 667 

(citing Arlington, 875 P.2d at 321). Defendant alleges he was not 

advised of the maximums penalties provided by law. Defendant 

contends that nowhere in the record does the District Judge inform 

him of the possibility of enhancement for a persistent felony 

offender or the implications of being designated a dangerous 

offender. 

The defendant's failure to raise this issue at the District 

Court by way of a motion to withdraw his guilty plea bars him from 

raising the issue on appeal. As in Issues 1 and 2, defendant 

failed to preserve this issue for appeal. See, Nelson, 906 P.2d at 

6 
665-66; state v. Enoch (19941, 269 Mont. 8, 11-12, 887 P.2d 175, 

177. 

we conclude the defendant was properly advised of the 

consequences of pleading guilty. 

Affirmed. 

7