State v. Fjelsted

What Counts as “Absconding” on Montana Probation? State v. Fjelsted, 2020 MT 278

Boland Aarab PLLP

In State v. Fjelsted, 2020 MT 278, the Montana Supreme Court unanimously held that a probationer who did not report for five months, and who left his officer without a working phone number or a complete address, had “absconded.” Absconding is a non-compliance violation under Montana’s 2017 revocation reforms, so the court could revoke his sentence directly without first using the graduated sanctions grid. The Court also held that a probation officer must make “reasonable efforts” to find the person, not everything in her power.

Key Takeaways

• To revoke directly for absconding, the State must prove (1) the offender deliberately made his whereabouts unknown or failed to report to avoid supervision, and (2) the officer’s reasonable efforts to locate him failed (Fjelsted ¶ 13; § 46-18-203(11)(a), MCA).
• A court may infer the purpose of avoiding supervision from what the offender did or failed to do (¶ 14).
• It is the offender’s responsibility to give the probation office a correct address and phone number (¶¶ 15, 17).
• “Reasonable efforts” does not require an officer “to do everything in their power” to find a probationer (¶ 17).

In this case sheet: At a glance · What the Court held · Our position and how the Court differed · What changed · Statutes · When it applies · How hard · Later decisions · FAQ

The lawyers who argued this case are the lawyers who handle yours. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

At a glance

A note on the name: the case is captioned “Fjelsted,” but the opinion uses the spelling “Fjelstad,” which appears in the district court judgment (¶ 3 n.1).

What did the Montana Supreme Court hold in State v. Fjelsted?

Mr. Fjelsted pleaded guilty in 2017 to felony criminal endangerment and received a fully suspended five-year sentence to the Department of Corrections (¶ 3). He complied with his conditions through October 31, 2017 (¶ 4).

After that, his probation officer could not reach him:

• She called and left messages on November 29, December 21 and January 1 (¶ 5).
• Her letter came back because the address he had given had no unit number (¶ 5).
• His chemical dependency counselor could not reach him either (¶¶ 5–6).
• The officer did not go to his home, 0.3 miles from her office, or call his landlord (¶ 5).

She requested a warrant on January 1, 2018. After his arrest in April, he said his phone had been stolen (¶ 5). The State’s petition alleged absconding, failing to follow treatment directions, unpaid fees and a positive methamphetamine test (¶ 4). The district court found all four violations. Only absconding was a non-compliance violation (¶ 7). The judge remarked that the officer might “not [have done] all that she could have,” but that Mr. Fjelsted had to stay in contact (¶ 7). The court imposed five years to the DOC with two suspended (¶ 7).

The legal framework. Under the 2017 reforms, most probation violations are “compliance” violations. Those cannot lead directly to revocation and must first be addressed through the Montana Incentives and Interventions Grid (MIIG). “Non-compliance” violations, including absconding, can lead straight to revocation (¶¶ 10–11).

The holding. The Supreme Court affirmed on both parts of the absconding definition:

1. Avoiding supervision. Following State v. Oropeza, 2020 MT 16, five months without reporting, despite a signed reporting rule and warning messages, supported a finding that he deliberately made his whereabouts unknown and failed to report to avoid supervision (¶ 14).
2. Reasonable efforts. Repeated calls and messages, a letter and a call to his counselor were “adequate and reasonable” (¶ 17).

The officer therefore did not have to exhaust MIIG procedures first (¶ 18).

What did we argue, and how did the Court differ?

Our position on appeal. We argued that Mr. Fjelsted failed to report, which is a compliance violation, but did not abscond. His revocation should therefore have gone through the MIIG first (¶ 12). We argued the State proved neither part of the definition (¶ 13):

• Purpose. Oropeza involved a probationer who ignored two direct orders from officers to report. Mr. Fjelsted never received any direct communication, because his phone was stolen and the letter was returned (¶ 15).
• Effort. The officer’s efforts stood “in stark contrast” to those in Oropeza, where officers visited the home, called the employer and reached a girlfriend. Here the officer never visited his nearby home or contacted his landlord, and calls to a stolen phone could not reach him (¶¶ 16–17).

The Court’s view.

• The Court did not find the difference from Oropeza significant. He received no messages because he “failed to provide her a complete address and updated phone number,” and “[i]t is a defendant’s responsibility to provide correct contact information” (¶ 15).
• On effort, the Court agreed the officer may not have done everything possible. But the statute requires “reasonable efforts,” not everything in the officer’s power (¶ 17).
• The Court also noted that, apart from his own statements, nothing in the record supported the claim that his phone was stolen. Even if it was, he still had to report when scheduled and to update his number (¶ 17).

No justice dissented.

What did Fjelsted change in Montana law?

Fjelsted was decided the same day as State v. M. Howard, 2020 MT 279, another revocation appeal handled by the firm. Together with Oropeza, they were among the Court’s first published decisions applying the 2017 revocation reforms. Fjelsted added three points to Oropeza:

1. No direct order is needed. An offender can be found to have absconded even without ignoring a direct instruction to report, if he failed to report for a long period and left the officer without working contact information (¶¶ 14–15).
2. Contact information is the offender’s job. A missing unit number or dead phone number counts against the offender, not the officer (¶¶ 15, 17).
3. “Reasonable” is not “exhaustive.” An officer who did not visit the home or call the landlord can still have made reasonable efforts (¶ 17).

Which Montana laws and rules apply?

• § 46-18-203, MCA: revocation of a suspended or deferred sentence. The definition of “absconding” the Court applied is still in subsection (11)(a). The section has been amended several times since 2017 (including in 2023 and 2025), and some subsections cited in the opinion have been renumbered.
• § 45-5-207, MCA: criminal endangerment, the underlying offense

When might Fjelsted apply to you?

• Your phone goes missing or is stolen while on probation. The obligation to report and to update your contact information does not pause (¶ 17).
• You move or give an incomplete address. A missing apartment or unit number can be treated as making your whereabouts unknown (¶¶ 14–15).
• You stop checking in for a stretch. Months of missed reporting can support a finding that you were avoiding supervision, even if nobody reached you with a direct order (¶ 14).

Every revocation turns on its own record.

How difficult is a probation revocation appeal in Montana?

These appeals are difficult:

• Low burden for the State. The State must prove a violation only by a preponderance of the evidence (¶ 7).
• Deferential review. The Supreme Court asks whether the decision “was supported by a preponderance of the evidence in favor of the State, and if it was, whether the court abused its discretion” (¶ 8, quoting State v. Goff).
• Legal questions are reviewed fresh. Whether the statute was interpreted correctly, or whether the court had authority to act, is reviewed de novo (¶ 8). That is where the MIIG argument lived, and it is why these cases are worth appealing when the statute is misapplied.

Related law and later decisions

Statutes and rules

• § 46-18-203, MCA: revocation of a suspended or deferred sentence. The Court applied the 2017 version. The Legislature has amended the section since, in 2023 and four times in 2025, and some subsections have been renumbered. The “absconding” definition still appears in (11)(a) in the words the Court quoted.
• § 45-5-207, MCA: criminal endangerment. The conviction was under the 2015 version; the section was amended in 2017 and 2021.

Later decisions citing this case

• An exact-citation search (September 2026) did not identify a later published decision citing Fjelsted.

The Boland Aarab Way

Boland Aarab PLLP represented Mr. Fjelsted in this appeal, and the Court affirmed the revocation. We publish every published decision in our appeals, whatever the disposition, because the record shows how the Court reads new statutes, and a careful comparison with precedent is often what moves the law. That same close reading of the record goes into our serious trucking and injury cases and catastrophic injury cases. When you hire Boland Aarab, you work with the attorneys whose names are on opinions like this one.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is “absconding” in Montana? It means an offender deliberately makes his whereabouts unknown to a probation and parole officer, or fails to report to avoid supervision, and the officer’s reasonable efforts to locate him have been unsuccessful (Fjelsted ¶ 13; § 46-18-203(11)(a), MCA).

Can Montana revoke probation for missing appointments? A simple missed appointment is usually a compliance violation, which must first be handled through the MIIG rather than by direct revocation. Absconding is a non-compliance violation that can lead directly to revocation (Fjelsted ¶ 11).

Does my probation officer have to come to my house before claiming I absconded? Not necessarily. The statute requires reasonable efforts, not every possible effort. In Fjelsted, calls, messages, a letter and a call to the counselor were enough (¶ 17).

Work With the Lawyers Behind These Cases

Boland Aarab is a Great Falls trial firm. The same attorneys who brief and argue before the Montana Supreme Court handle our clients’ serious injury, trucking and wrongful-death cases from the first call. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

About Boland Aarab PLLP: Boland Aarab PLLP is a Great Falls, Montana trial firm. Its attorneys, Caitlin Boland Aarab and Samir F. Aarab, have appeared in more than 40 matters before the Montana Supreme Court and have argued twice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The firm carries on the Great Falls practice Thomas E. Boland began in 1974. Meet our attorneys.

Sources:

• State v. Fjelsted, 2020 MT 278 (official opinion)
• § 46-18-203, MCA
• § 45-5-207, MCA

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.