Prosecutors appeal downgraded sentence for former Missoula boxing gym executive
Missoula County prosecutors are appealing a judge's decision last year to unilaterally dismiss a felony charge for surreptitiously recording video of a girl while she was changing — an unusual step after the judge initially accepted a former boxing gym executive's guilty plea.
But in a response brief filed last week with the Montana Supreme Court, the defense attorney for Jonathan Partain argues the judge was acting within the scope of his authority after determining the case had been "over-charged" by prosecutors.
Partain, 51, was initially charged in November 2022 in Missoula County District Court with one felony count of sexual abuse of children and one misdemeanor count of surreptitious visual recording of the survivor. He later admitted to leaving his cellphone in the room where a girl later changed clothes, and using his watch to initiate the recording from another room on "a sexual impulse."
Partain's case drew attention locally, as he formerly served as the CEO of the Missoula Boxing Club. The club's executive director previously told the Missoulian that Partain was removed from his position as soon as the charges were filed, and noted none of the allegations involved the boxing gym.
Partain eventually reached a plea deal with prosecutors to plead guilty to the felony while having the misdemeanor dismissed. The county attorney's office also agreed to recommend a suspended 10-year prison term, meaning he wouldn't have to serve time if he abided by the terms of his probation. Partain had no previous criminal history.
Missoula District Court Judge Robert Deschamps initially accepted the guilty plea in August 2023, but reversed course during Partain's sentencing hearing that October.
Citing the survivor's victim impact statement submitted to the court, the judge called the case a "train wreck" and dismissed the felony, replacing it with the lesser misdemeanor charge he had previously dismissed under the plea deal. In a second statement quoted in the state's opening brief, the survivor wrote that "the way the court handled my case made me feel ashamed as a victim."
As he gave his order during the sentencing hearing, Deschamps expressed frustration with the plea deal and the prosecution, and cited the survivor's previous statement, which remains under seal.
"And I guess I didn't pay enough attention to (the girl's) letter, because I should've put a stop to this right then," Deschamps said, according to a transcript quoted in the state's brief. "I should not have let this case go to the extent it has. I think it was over-charged. I think that this crime here is, at best, the count that was dismissed, which is surreptitious viewing."
Deschamps' order gave Partain a two-year suspended prison sentence, during which time he is under misdemeanor probation. The order cites state law as giving the judge authority to dismiss the felony charge and find the defendant guilty of the lesser charge.
The decision was "based upon the evidence in the charging documents, the pre-sentence report, the psychosexual evaluation, the victim impact statements and in the interest of justice as described in detail on the record," Deschamps wrote in an amended order that was filed in January.
The survivor's mother, in a letter quoted in the defense's brief to the high court, wrote to Deschamps this February thanking him for his decision.
"By your ruling, we have a way to move forward with support and accountability," she wrote.
A question of authority
The Missoula County Attorney's Office is being represented in the appeal by the office of Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen. In its opening brief to the Supreme Court, filed in March, the state writes that Deschamps cited a law referring to judges' authority to grant a new trial, which "is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case."
The brief also argues that Deschamps no longer had legal authority to dismiss or amend the felony charge once he had already accepted the plea deal between the two parties.
"No matter how laudable the district court believed its actions were — to serve the best interests of the family, the district court's non-legal, personal perception of the right course of action could not overcome its lack of statutory or constitutional authority to act in the manner that it did," the state writes in the appeal.
But in her response, Partain's attorney, Kathleen Foley, contends that state law explicitly gives the district judge that broad discretion. A district judge can dismiss a felony if "good cause for dismissal is shown and the reasons for the dismissal are set forth in an order," under a statute cited in the response brief.
The state also argues that prosecutors could have taken the case to trial on the original charges if the judge had rejected the plea agreement during Partain's change-of-plea hearing.
Deschamps instead violated the court's separation of powers, the state contends, and "usurped the prosecutor's discretion to make charging decisions."
Foley's response counters that the judicial branch "is the arbiter of disputes and the renderer of judgments on criminal defendants."
"The court in its role does not divorce itself of its humanity and robotically mete out consequences," she continues. "If that were true, actual robots could do it."
The state is asking the high court to remand the case to a different judge to proceed with sentencing on the felony charge.
Get the latest in local public safety news with this weekly email. State Bureau Reporter
