State v. Bloomer, 2025 MT 93 (decided May 6, 2025)
By James Murnion — Serving Missoula, Kalispell, Hamilton, Butte, Helena, and the greater Western Montana Area
On May 6, 2025, the Montana Supreme Court reversed a Missoula District Court sentence that treated Ryan Bloomer’s fifth DUI conviction under the harsher penalty provision of § 61‑8‑1008(2), MCA. Because the trial judge sentenced Bloomer for his fourth and fifth DUIs at the same hearing, the high court held that he had not been “previously sentenced” on the fourth DUI—a prerequisite for the enhanced fifth‑offense penalties. The case tightens the rules on when prosecutors may invoke Montana’s newest felony‑DUI enhancements.
How We Got Here
| Timeline | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021 | Legislature rewrites DUI penalty statutes, moving fifth‑offense penalties to § 61‑8‑1008(2) and increasing prison exposure. |
| 2021 | Bloomer commits his 4th DUI before the new statutory scheme becomes effective. |
| April 2023 | Bloomer charged with a 5th DUI before the 4th DUI is sentenced. |
| May 2023 | District Court holds one sentencing hearing and: • sentences the 4th DUI under the old § 61‑8‑731 (2019) (13 months DOC + 5 yrs suspended); • sentences the 5th DUI under § 61‑8‑1008(2) (concurrent 9 yrs DOC, 5 yrs suspended). |
Bloomer appealed, arguing that § 61‑8‑1008(2) can apply only if he was already sentenced for the fourth DUI under § 61‑8‑1008(1).
The Supreme Court’s Reasoning
- Plain‑Language Not Followed
Bloomer noted the plain language of 61-8-1002(2) required a previous DUI conviction be sentenced under 61-8-1008(1) before the harsher penalties of 1002(2) could apply, and not a sentence under the statutory scheme in place before the 2021 statutory changes. The Court disagreed and ignored the plain language of the statute because it determined it would lead to an absurd result (e.g., a person with 15 DUI convictions would be sentenced as if they only had 3.) - Running Wolf Precedent
Even though the Court did not agree with Bloomer’s arguments, it nonetheless reversed Bloomer’s conviction on other grounds. The Court relied on State v. Running Wolf, which barred persistent‑felony‑offender status when the predicate and principal felonies were sentenced together. The wording—“previously convicted under” in Running Wolf vs. “previously sentenced under” here—was “substantively identical.” - Result
The District Court must resentence the fifth DUI under § 61‑8‑1008(1)—the same range that governs a fourth DUI—because Bloomer had not yet been sentenced on offense #4 when offense #5 was punished.
Why This Matters in Western Montana
- Sentencing Timing Is Critical – Prosecutors can no longer bundle a fourth and fifth DUI in one hearing and automatically seek the heightened § 61‑8‑1008(2) penalties.
- Defense Strategy – Where multiple DUIs are pending, coordinating plea dates and sentencing calendars may limit exposure to the harshest felony‑DUI terms.
- Judicial Consistency – Trial courts must verify that a prior DUI was actually sentenced—not merely convicted—before escalating to subsection (2).
- Legislative Clarification? – If lawmakers want concurrent sentencing to count for enhancement, they’ll need to amend the statute.
Takeaways for Drivers Charged with Repeat DUIs
- Fourth vs. Fifth Offense Penalties
• Fourth DUI (§ 61‑8‑1008(1)): 13 months DOC + up to 5 years suspended, plus fines and treatment OR 5 years treatment court.
• Fifth DUI (§ 61‑8‑1008(2)): up to 10 years DOC
Under Bloomer, subsection (2) applies only after you’ve already been sentenced once under subsection (1) OR the previous statutory scheme’s 4th DUI sentences. - Multiple Pending Cases
The order in which cases are resolved can dramatically affect sentencing exposure—an important point to discuss with defense counsel.
Need Guidance on a DUI Charge?
If you are facing multiple DUI counts or felony‑DUI enhancements in Missoula, Kalispell, Hamilton, Helena, or elsewhere in Western Montana, contact Murnion Law for a strategic defense that accounts for the latest Supreme Court rulings.
Call (406) 282-1857 or reach out online for a confidential consultation.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique; consult an attorney about your specific situation.