DA 18-0619

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2020 MT 208N

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

MICHAEL PAUL FURBUSH,

 Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DC 16-408

Honorable Deborah Kim Christopher, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Nick K. Brooke, Smith & Stephens, P.C., Missoula, Montana

For Appellee:

Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Brad Fjeldheim, Assistant 

Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Steven Eschenbacher, Lake County Attorney, Polson, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: July 29, 2020

 Decided: August 18, 2020

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

r--6ta•--df

08/18/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0619
2

Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

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

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not 

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this 

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana 

Reports. 

¶2 Appellant, Michael Paul Furbush (Furbush), appeals the August 23, 2018 order of 

the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, denying his motion to withdraw his 

guilty plea and the District Court’s Judgment of September 13, 2018, revoking his 

suspended sentence. We affirm.

¶3 Furbush entered into a written Acknowledgment of Rights and Plea Agreement in 

which he agreed to plead guilty. On November 16, 2017, during the change of plea hearing, 

Furbush pleaded guilty to felony theft1and the District Court accepted his guilty plea.

2 On 

February 8, 2018, Furbush was sentenced to a 5-year Department of Corrections (DOC)

 

1 At the plea change hearing the following exchange occurred between Furbush and his counsel:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Is it true that on or about February 1 and February 9th, 

2016, in Lake County, Montana, you purposely or knowingly obtained or exerted 

unauthorized control over property that belonged to Richard Krogstad that had the 

value of more than $1500? 

[THE DEFENDANT]: Yes

2 The District Court pronounced at the hearing: “I accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and find 

[Furbush] guilty of theft, a felony.” Upon this pronouncement from the District Court, Furbush 

did not object or do anything to advise the court he did not plead guilty, but rather had entered a 

no contest plea. Further, Furbush did not raise the issue at sentencing and following issuance of

the court’s written judgment, which specifically stated Furbush was convicted “by plea of guilty 

to the offense of THEFT,” he did not seek any correction of the written judgment. 
3

commitment, with all but 114 days of time served suspended and was given credit for time 

served for those 114 days. On February 21, 2018, the State filed a petition to revoke 

Furbush’s sentence, and Furbush was arrested. Thereafter, Furbush moved to continue the 

adjudication hearing four times between March and July 2018. The District Court granted 

the continuances. At the hearing on Furbush’s second continuance, the District Court 

released Furbush but ordered him to immediately report to Montana Chemical Dependency 

Center (MCDC). After release, Furbush did not report to MCDC, but rather was arrested 

in Billings in June 2018. Following this, DOC filed an addendum to the report of violation 

asserting two additional violations.

¶4 On August 6, 2018, Furbush filed a motion to withdraw his plea.3 The District Court 

denied the motion. Following the adjudication hearing on September 6, 2018, the District 

Court found sufficient evidence to revoke Furbush’s suspended sentence and then imposed 

a 5-year DOC commitment. 

¶5 Furbush now appeals denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, asserting he entered 

a no-contest plea and that he did not understand the ramifications of it. We review a District 

Court’s grant or denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea de novo. State v. Zunick, 

2014 MT 239, ¶ 10, 376 Mont. 293, 339 P.3d 1228. From our review of the record, the 

District Court did not err in denying Furbush’s motion to withdraw his plea. Furbush, 

working with his counsel, sought out and entered into a written plea agreement in which 

 

3

In the motion, Furbush asserted he had previously entered a no contest plea. The record does not 

support this characterization. While Furbush indicated he would rather the plea be a no contest 

plea, he entered a plea agreement which provided he would plead guilty and he then, in fact,

pleaded guilty to the felony theft charge.
4

he agreed to plead guilty. Furbush was well aware of the direct consequences of the plea,

and there was no evidence of any threats, coercion, or improper promises. He informed 

the District Court he believed the plea agreement was in his best interest. At his plea 

change hearing, he pleaded guilty to the felony theft offense, admitted every element of the 

offense, and he received the benefit of his bargain—a 5-year sentence that suspended all 

time not previously served. We agree with the State; the record does not support Furbush’s 

attempt to now characterize the nature of his plea as a no contest plea. The record supports 

the District Court’s conclusion he entered a guilty plea made knowingly and voluntarily. 

¶6 Furbush also asserts the District Court “erred when it revoked Furbush’s suspended 

sentence based almost entirely on testimony that violates the right to confrontation.” 

(Emphasis added.) More particularly, Furbush asserts it was improper for the District 

Court to rely on the testimony of probation officer Devon McCrae to revoke Furbush’s 

suspended sentence as McCrae lacked personal knowledge of Furbush’s conduct and only 

testified as to what was related to him by other officers. Furbush contends this violated his 

right to confrontation. 

¶7 We review a court’s revocation of a suspended sentence for an abuse of discretion.

State v. Cook, 2012 MT 34, ¶ 12, 364 Mont. 161, 272 P.3d 50. At the adjudication hearing 

of September 6, 2018, Furbush admitted various violations of the conditions of his 

suspended sentence. He admitted travel violations—traveling to Billings without 

permission on February 8, 2018, and again on May 24, 2018, when he was supposed to be 

reporting to MCDC—and that he failed to report at least a couple of times. Furbush also 
5

admitted he had been charged with driving on a suspended license and without insurance.4 

“A single violation of the terms and conditions of a sentence is sufficient to support a 

court’s revocation of that sentence.” Cook, ¶ 23. The State was not required to produce 

evidence corroborating Furbush’s admissions. From Furbush’s admissions alone, the 

District Court did not err in revoking his suspended sentence.5

¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our 

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the 

Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of 

applicable standards of review.

¶9 Affirmed.

/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON

We concur: 

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

/S/ JIM RICE

 

4

In a more general manner, when questioned by his counsel at the adjudication hearing, Furbush 

admitted overall violation of his probation: 

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So you heard [the probation officer’s] testimony about 

you needed to sign up and you could have done a transfer. Would you like to 

explain to the Court -- rather than going violation by violation, would you like to 

tell the Court why you’ve had some struggles on probation and what you would 

like to see happen with your case? 

[FURBUSH]: First, I can't change what has happened. If I was more educated with 

what I was suppose [sic] to do, of course I probably would have gone along with

everything I was suppose [sic] to. And I would like to see myself, you know, 

correcting my mistakes and learning from them. 

5 As such, it is unnecessary to consider Furbush’s right to confrontation arguments and we decline 

to do so now.