text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. April L. Azure, Defendant.
    NO. ADC 91-144
    DECISION
   On October 24, 1995, it was the order of the Court that the defendant’s deferred sentence be revoked and that April Azure, be sentenced to serve ten (10) years in the Montana State Women’s Correctional Facility, Billings, Montana, for the crime of Count I: Criminal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, a Felony. It is further ordered that the defendant, April Azure, be sentenced to serve ten (10) years in the Montana State Women’s Correctional Facility, Billings, Montana, for the crime of Count II: Criminal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, a Felony. The defendant must complete the required chemical dependency and mental health treatment programs before parole may be considered and any recommendation thereof. Said sentences are to run concurrently with one another and the defendant is given credit for time served, a total of twelve (12) days, and no credit for street time is to be given. At any time that the defendant does make parole she will be placed under the conditions as stated in the October 24, 1995 judgment.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Dave Peck, legal intern of the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Dave Peck, legal intern of the Montana Defender Project for representing April Azure in this matter.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Keith Allen Barnhart, Defendant.
    NO. BDC 95-166
    DECISION
   On November 16, 1995, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a felony, the defendant is sentenced to Montana State Prison for a period of forty (40) years, with twelve (12) years suspended. The defendant shall not be eligible for parole until he completes Phases I and II of the sex offender treatment program. The defendant shall be granted nine (9) days’ credit for time served prior to sentencing.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

Alternate Member, Hon. Robert Boyd

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Keith Barnhart for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff, vs. James J. Brown, Defendant.
    NO. CDC 95-265
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On November 14, 1995, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed, that on the charge of Count II: Deceptive Practices, a Felony, the defendant is sentenced to a term of five (5) years in the Montana State Prison. Defendant is given credit for 150 days already served. This sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Cause No. BDC 87-121. Defendant shall be subject to the conditions as stated in the November 14,1995 judgment. It is further ordered that the motion by the State to dismiss Count I: Forgery, a felony is granted.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and requested that his hearing be continued.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the case shall be continued to the May 24, 1996 hearing.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. James J. Brown, Defendant.
    NO. BDC 87-121
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On November 7, 1995, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant’s suspended sentence is revoked and the defendant is sentenced to serve the remainder of his time at the Montana State Prison. He shall not be given credit for street time while he was violating the conditions of his probation, but shall be given credit for any time served at the Cascade County Detention Center while awaiting the resolution of this matter. The Court believes this defendant is likely to continue to avoid responsibility for his actions and to continue his criminal behavior unless dramatic changes occur in his life. For that reason, the Court recommends that this defendant be considered for and accepted into the Swan River Boot Camp Program, if he chooses to enter that program. If the defendant successfully completes that program, he may seek a probationary sentence for the remainder of his sentence. The Court recommends that conditions be imposed if the defendant is released from confinement as stated in the November 7, 1995 judgment.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and requested that his hearing be continued.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the case shall be continued to the May 24, 1996 hearing.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Justin Lee Conway, Defendant.
    NO. BDC 94-206
    DECISION
   On May 25,1995, it was ordered that for the offense of Sexual Assault, a felony, the defendant is sentenced to the Montana Department of Corrections and Human Services for a period of twenty (20) years, with five (5) years suspended, upon the conditions set forth in the May 25, 1995 judgment. The department may place the defendant into an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correetional institution, where the defendant can obtain sex offender treatment (SOP), anger management, and chemical dependency screening and care. The Court recommends that the defendant complete chemical dependency treatment and SOP Phases I and II at Montana State Prison prior to being considered for parole. During the time of probation or parole status, the Court recommends that the defendant be subject to intensive supervision. Further, the Court recommends that any parole, intensive supervision program (ISP) or suspended portion of this sentence be subject to conditions as set forth in the May 25, 1995 judgment.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. William N. Swandal

Alternate Member, Hon. Robert Boyd

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Justin Lee Conway for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Gregory G. Cooper, Defendant.
    NO. 9054
    DECISION
   On September 27,1995, the Court found the defendant in violation of the conditions of his suspended sentence and it is the judgment of the Court that defendant’s prior suspended sentence is hereby revoked and that the defendant be and he is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of two (2) years on Count I for suitable placement, which may include an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correctional institution. (The sentence on Count II has expired.) It is the recommendation of the Court that as a condition of early release or parole that the defendant shall pay all of the restitution and Court costs as ordered herein together with additional public defender fees in the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). Due to the defendant’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence while under the supervision of the Department of Probation and Parole, the Court finds that he is not entitled to receive, and shall not receive, credit for any elapsed time between the date of his conviction and the date of this Order, except that he shall receive credit from December 16, 1989, through January 4, 1990; from July 21, 1990, through July 26, 1990; from August 9, 1990, through August 22,1990; from March 4, 1992, through March 23,1992; from October 29,1993, through November 1,1993; from October 30, 1994, through February 8, 1995; from March 1, 1995, through March 24, 1995; for one hundred eighty-nine (189) days jail time which he has previously served.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed and requested that his petition be dismissed.

It is hereby ordered that the petition is dismissed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Marvin "Lee" Cure, Defendant.
    NO. DC 95-01
    DECISION
   On September 13, 1995, it was ordered that the defendant, Marvin "Lee" Cure, is hereby placed in the custody of the Montana State Department of Corrections for a term of 25 years. Defendant shall be transfered to Montana State Prison and is not eligible for parole for a term of three (3) years and, in addition, shall complete at least the first two phases of the sexual offender course and the chemical dependency course before being eligible for parole. That defendant shall pay the mandatory surcharge of $20.00 to the Clerk of District Court immediately. Conditions of defendant’s parole, if granted in the future are stated in the September 13, 1995 judgment. The defendant shall be given credit for thirty-six (36) days served in the Sweet Grass County Jail.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Alternate Member, Hon. Robert Boyd

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Marvin Cure for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Ronald Gene DeSalvo, Defendant.
    NO. 2165
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On November 10, 1994, it was ordered that the defendant, Ronald Gene DeSalvo, is adjudged and decreed to be guilty of the offense of Count III, Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a Felony, as charged in the Information. Ronald DeSalvo is adjudged and decreed to be a persistent felony offender as defined by 46-18-501, M.C.A. for the reason that: Defendant was previously convicted on July 3, 1992, at Havre, Montana of Theft, a felony for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year could have been imposed, less than five years have elapsed between the commission of the present offense and this previous felony conviction, and defendant has not been pardoned nor has the conviction for this previous offense been set aside. As a persistent felony offender a sentence enhancement provision of Section 46-18-502(1), M.C.A. apply. Pursuant to 46-18-502(1), M.C.A., the defendant is sentenced to fifteen (15) years in the Montana State Prison as a persistent felony offender. The defendant is credited with 283 days jail time credit for the time he served from the date of his arrest to the date of his sentencing. If the defendant is paroled, it is this Court’s recommendation that the Parole Board consider imposing the terms and conditions as stated in the November 10, 1994 judgment.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and requested that his case be continued.

After careful consideration, the motion for a continuance was granted. The case shall be heard at the May 24, 1996 hearing.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Mark Leroy Duffin, Defendant.
    NO. 1415
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On October 19, 1994, it was ordered that for the felony offense of Mitigated Deliberate Homicide, the defendant is sentenced to a term of forty (40) years in the Montana State Prison. The defendant is hereby certified as dangerous, for purposes of probation and parole. Should the defendant eventually qualify for parole, a condition thereof shall be that he reimburse Violet Foss for the funeral expenses incurred by her for the victim. The defendant is granted credit for all time incarcerated prior to and after conviction. The Sheriff shall calculate and certify this information to the Prison administration.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Chad Wright, legal intern of the Montana Defender Project. The state was represented by Deborah F. Butler, deputy county attorney from Bouder.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Chad Wright, legal intern of the Montana Defender Project for representing Mark Duffin in this matter and also Deborah F. Butler for representing the State.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Dean Ward Ekblad, Defendant.
    NO. ADC 94-341
    DECISION

      DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On August 16, 1995, it was ordered that the defendant be sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a period of five (5) years for the offense of Aggravated Assault, a Felony. Credit for time already served, a total of 234 days is given. The defendant is subject to conditions as stated in the August 16, 1995 judgment.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed and requested that his petition be dismissed.

It is hereby ordered that the petition is dismissed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Robert E. Fries, Defendant.
    NO. DC 88-362
    DECISION
   On May 4, 1989, it was ordered that the said defendant be punished by imprisonment in the Montana State Prison for the offenses of Count I: Deviate Sexual Conduct (Felony), Count II: Deviate Sexual Conduct (Felony), and Count III: Deviate Sexual Conduct (Felony); for a term of twenty (20) years on each count to be served concurrently. It is further ordered that the defendant shall pay to the Clerk of District Court the sum of $20.00 for this conviction pursuant to statute Section 46-18-236, MCA. The Clerk of District Court is hereby ordered to deliver the said sum of $20.00 to the Treasurer of this County.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed with the modification that as to Count III: Deviate Sexual Conduct, a Felony, the sentence shall be ten (10) years in Montana State Prison, all suspended, and to run consecutive to Counts I and II. All conditions as stated in the May 4, 1989 judgment will remain the same and the defendant shall also continue with any sex offender program deemed appropriate by the staff of Montana State Prison.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

The purpose of this amendment is so that when the defendant is released from Montana State Prison, he will still be under supervised probation status.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Robert E. Fries for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Gloria B. Frost, Defendant.
    NO. 94-50
    DECISION
    DATED this 2nd day of April, 1996.
   On October 20, 1995, it was ordered that the defendant’s suspended sentence for the offenses of Theft, a Felony and Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drug, a Felony is revoked and the defendant is sentenced to five (5) years on each count, to run consecutively, with the Department of Corrections and Human Services for placement in an appropriate facility. Defendant shall be immediately transferred to the Montana Women’s Correctional Center as soon as possible. It is further ordered that all of the applicable terms and conditions of defendant’s sentence which are applicable are reinstated. Payment of restitution shall be a condition of parole.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Alternate Member, Hon. Robert Boyd

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Gloria B. Frost for representing herself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Bert E. Goodman, Defendant.
    NO. DC 91-39
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On October 31,1995, it was the order and sentence and judgment of this court that the suspended sentence ordered by this court on February 21, 1992, is revoked. For the offense of Issuing a Bad Check, the defendant is committed to the Department of Corrections for a period of four (4) years. The defendant shall be given credit for 18 days that the defendant has served from his arrest. In addition, the defendant shall be given credit for as many days as the defendant shall serve at the Gallatin County Detention Center from October 12,1995, until he is tranported by the Department of Corrections. The Court recommends to the placement committee that the defendant be placed in a pre-release center that can address his counseling needs. This Court also recommends that when the defendant is employed he shall pay restitution in the amount of $7,471.82 to the victims listed in the original sentencing order.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, hut also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed and requested that his petition be dismissed.

It is hereby ordered that the petition is dismissed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Len L. Hadden, Defendant.
    NO. 10402
    DECISION
   On September 18,1995, the Court found the defendant in violation of the conditions of his suspended sentence and it is the judgment of the Court that defendant’s prior suspended sentence is hereby revoked and that the defendant be and he is hereby sentenced to a term of five (5) years in the Montana State Prison. The defendant shall receive credit for one hundred fifty-one (151) days jail time which he has previously served. Defendant shall be designated a non-dangerous offender for the purposes of parole.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed and requested that his petition be dismissed.

It is hereby ordered that the petition is dismissed

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lyrnpus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Bruce Holte Hagen, Defendant.
    NO. DC 93-23
    DECISION
   On June 14,1994, it was the judgment of the Court that the defendant is sentenced, with respect to Count II - Aggravated Assault, a Felony to a term of twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison. The defendant is sentenced to an additional sentence of ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, to run consecutively, for use of a dangerous weapon during the commission of the aggravated assault. It is further the judgment of the court that the defendant is hereby sentenced to a term of life imprisonment for the offense of Deliberate Homicide, a felony. There is imposed an additional sentence of ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison for use of a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense of Deliberate Homicide, which shall run consecutively. The sentences for Aggravated Assault and Deliberate Homicide shall run consecutively. The Court makes no designation of dangerous or non dangerous for parole eligibility but reserves the right, pursuant to Section 46-18-404 MCA. Defendant shall receive credit for one hundred fifty (150) days jail time already served as of the date of this judgment.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Kevin Brown, legal intern of the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Kevin Brown, legal intern of the Montana Defender Project for representing Bruce Holte Hagen in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Christopher L. Hanson, Defendant.
    NO. 11541
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On October 10, 1995, it was the judgment of the Court that the defendant be sentenced to a term of forty (40) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Robbery, a Felony. That, however, twenty (20) years of defendant’s sentence is hereby suspended on terms and conditions as listed in the October 10, 1995 judgment. Defendant shall be designated a dangerous offender for purposes of parole. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail in the amount of one hundred thirty-three (133) days.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was represented by Robert L. Deschamps, county attorney of Missoula.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey ML Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Christopher Lars Hanson for representing himself in this matter and also Robert L. Deschamps, county attorney of Missoula for representing the State.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Brian Charles Hayes, Defendant.
    NO. CR 94-46
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On January 13, 1995, the Court ordered the defendant, Brian Charles Hayes to a term of five (5) years at hard labor upon said conviction of Criminal Mischief, a felony, at Montana State Prison, in Deer Lodge. Provided, however, that the court recommends that defendant be permitted to participate in the Boot Camp Program at Swan River if he desires, and if he successfully completes the same, together with the prerelease program and conditions, he may request the court to reconsider this sentence and modify it to a suspended sentence. In the event of such modification, the terms of defendant’s probation shall include, but not be limited to the following, as stated in the January 13, 1995 judgment. That defendant is sentenced to a fine of $500.00, to be paid hereinafter set forth, and if not, to be served at the rate of $25.00 per day in Montana State Prison. Said fine shall be credited to the County general fund. Defendant shall also pay restitution to the victims of $575.30 and Park County of $250.00 for court-appointed attorney fees in this case, as hereinafter set forth. That defendant shall also pay a surcharge of $20.00 to the clerk of court within five days hereafter. That defendant is hereby designated as a nondangerous offender, and his parole eligibility shall be determined accordingly. He shall also receive credit for five (5) days served, plus any additional time after sentencing on January 12,1995. That defendant shall participate in and complete anger management classes and chemical dependency counseling available at Montana State Prison and said Boot Camp, and comply with all rules and regulations thereof.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Brian Charles Hayes for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Darrel Gene Howe, Defendant.
    NO. DC 93-011
    DECISION
    DATED this 20th day of March, 1996.
   On August 6, 1993, it was the judgment of the Court that the defendant serve a term of forty (40) years at the Montana State Prison for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a Felony. Credit is to be given for one hundred sixteen (116) days served in custody and under house arrest pending final disposition of this matter. Given the nature and extent of his deviancy, and the apparent depth of his denial, the defendant is to be ineligible for parole until he completes all phases of the sex offender treatment program at the Montana State Prison and follow all resulting recommendations. Having repeatedly demonstrated his inability to control his deviant impulses, having demonstrated the extent to which he is willing to go to satisfy his deviant desires, and it being clear that he is a predator and dangerous, it is further ordered that the defendant be declared a dangerous offender for purposes of parole eligibility. As required by Section 46-18-254, M.C.A., the defendant is hereby advised of his obligation to register as a sexual offender upon his release from custody. More specifically, under Title 46, Chapter 23, Part 5, of the Montana Code Annotated, the defendant must: 1. Within fourteen (14) days of coming into a County in which he resides or is temporarily domiciled, register with the Chief of Police of the municipality or the Sheriff of the County if he resides in an area other than a municipality; 2. Within ten (10) days of changing residence given written notification of his new address to the law enforcement agency with whom he last registered. Sections 46-23-504 and 46-23-505, M.C.A. The defendant is further advised that his obligation to register continues for a period of ten (10) years following his release from prison. Failure to comply with this requirement is punishable by a maximum fine of $250.00 and by a maximum term of imprisonment of ninety (90) days. Sections 46-23-506 and 46-23-507, M.C.A. A misdemeanor, failure to comply with this requirement could also result in the revocation of parole and/or probation.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was represented by Edward J. Corrigan, deputy county attorney of Kalispell.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed with the modification that the defendant be ineligible for consideration for parole until he has served twenty (20) years of the forty (40) year sentence imposed by Judge Keedy, and also has completed all phases of the sex offender program available at Montana State Prison.

The reasons for the modification include the defendant’s extreme predatory nature, his poor prognosis for rehabilitation from his extended deviant behavior and the thus demonstrated need of society to be further protected from him.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Darrell Gene Howe for representing himself in this matter and also Edward J. Corrigan, deputy county attorney of Kalispell for representing the State.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Darrell G. Howe, Defendant.
    Cause No. DC-93-011
    ORDER
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For Removal From Sentence Review Consideration filed March 12, 1996. On March 7, 1996, Defendant’s application for review of his sentence was heard by this Court, at which time Defendant appeared pro se and the State was represented by Ed Corrigan, Deputy Flathead County Attorney.

Before hearing the application, Defendant was advised that this matter was before the Court for its consideration of the sentence previously imposed upon him in the Eleventh Judicial District Court by Judge Michael H. Keedy; that his sentence could be affirmed as originally imposed, decreased or increased by this Court; and that in any event, there was no right of appeal from any such decision by this Court. Defendant acknowledged that he understood such circumstances and stated that he wished nevertheless to proceed. Whereupon, the Court proceeded with the hearing, during which Defendant made no mention of the matters he now asserts as grounds for his instant request, even though provided the opportunity to do so.

The Court, having considered Defendant’s Motion and being now fully advised in the premises, it is its decision that the Motion be, and it is hereby, DENIED.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey Sherlock

Member, Hon. Wm. Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Frederick Lamb, Defendant.
    NO. DC 94-667
    DECISION
   On July 13,1995, the Court ordered that the defendant be committed to the Director of the Department of Corrections pursuant to Section 46-14-312(2), Montana Code Annotated to be placed in an appropriate institution which the Court recommends as the Montana State Hospital, Galen Campus, Warm Springs, Montana, for custody, care and treatment for the period of time not to exceed the following: 1. On Count I: Attempt (Felony) (Aggravated Assault) the defendant is sentenced for the term of fifteen (15) years. It is further ordered that because the defendant, while engaged in the commission of the offense of Count I: Attempt (Felony) (Aggravated Assault) knowingly used a weapon, to wit: bomb/explosive device; he is hereby sentenced to the term of five (5) years to the Director of the Department of Corrections under the authority of 46-18-221, M.C.A.. This term shall be served consecutively with the term imposed for the commission of the crime of Count I: Attempt (Felony) (Aggravated Assault) as charged in the Information. On Count III: Possession of a Destructive Device (Felony) the defendant is sentenced for the term of ten (10) years to run concurrently with the sentence received in Count I of this criminal cause. Defendant shall receive credit for time spent in the Yellowstone County Detention Facility at Billings, Montana, for 205 days. It is further ordered that the defendant will be designated a dangerous felony offender for sentencing, pursuant to Section 46-18-404(3), Et. Seq.,M.C.A.. It is further ordered that additional special conditions shall apply as stated in the July 13, 1995 judgment.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and requested that his case be continued.

After careful consideration, the motion for a continuance was granted. The case shall be heard at the May 24, 1996 hearing.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Frank Joseph Lira, Defendant.
    NO. 10910
    DECISION
   On September 5,1995, the Court found the defendant in violations of the conditions of his suspended sentences which are: Count I: Conspiracy to sell dangerous drugs, a felony; Count II: Accountability for criminal sale of dangerous drugs, a Felony; Count III: Criminal sale of dangerous drugs, a felony; Count IV: Criminal possession of dangerous drugs, a misdemeanor; and Count V: Criminal Possession of drug paraphernalia, a Misdemeanor. It is the judgment of the Court that defendant’s prior suspended sentences are hereby revoked and that the defendant be and he is hereby sentenced to a term of twenty (20) years each on Count I, II and III in the Montana State Prison at Deer Lodge, Montana. (Sentences on Count IV and V have expired.) The sentences on Count I and II shall run consecutively with each other. Count III shall run concurrently with the sentences imposed in Count I and II and concurrently with any federal sentence the defendant receives. The Court finds that he is not entitled to receive, and shall not receive, credit for any elapsed time between the date of his conviction and the date of this Order, except that he shall receive credit from November 8, 1993, through December 6, 1993; from August 3, 1994, through September 23, 1994; from August 2,1995, through date of sentencing, September 5,1995, for eighty-six (86) days jail time which he has previously served.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed and requested that his petition be dismissed.

It is hereby ordered that the petition is dismissed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Percy Morrison, Defendant.
    NO. DC 93-34
    DECISION
   On December 19,1994, it was ordered that the defendant be declared a persistent felony offender pursuant to the provisions of Section 46-18-502(1) MCA (1993). Defendant is hereby sentenced to five (5) years in the Montana State Prison at Deer Lodge, Montana. Defendant is further sentenced to a term of two (2) years in the Montana State Prison at Deer Lodge, Montana, for the offense of Theft (Felony). It is further ordered that the sentences above shall run concurrently with each other, and that the defendant shall receive credit for time already served in this matter in the Big Horn County Jail from September 7, 1994, to the time of his transfer to the Montana State Prison. It is further ordered that, during any period of parole, defendant will be placed under the supervision of the Dept, of Adult Probation and Parole, and will abide by the rules and regulations of that office. It is further ordered that defendant shall pay twenty and 00/100 dollars ($20.00) imposed as a surcharge as specified in Section 46-18-236 M.C.A. (1993) to the Clerk of the District Court in Big Horn County, Montana.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be amended to read as follows: The defendant is sentenced to seven (7) years with five (5) suspended in Montana State Prison for the offense of Theft. Before being eligible for parole, the defendant is to complete his GED and also the chemical dependency program available at the Montana State Prison

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

The reason for the amendment is because it is the feeling of the Sentence Review Division that the defendant needs to be on supervised probation when he is discharged from Montana State Prison.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Percy Morrison for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Morris E. Poncelet, Defendant.
    NO. 8407
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On September 12,1995, the Court found the defendant in violation of the conditions of his suspended sentence for the offense of Theft, a felony. It is the judgment of the Court that defendant’s prior suspended sentence is hereby revoked and that the defendant be and he is hereby sentenced to a term of five (5) years in the Montana State Prison at Deer Lodge, Montana. The defendant shall receive credit in the amount of fifty-two (52) days jail time which he has previously served. For purposes of parole eligibility the defendant is designated a non-dangerous offender.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Rachael Clark, legal intern of the Montana Defender Project. The state was represented by Robert L. Deschamps, county attorney of Missoula.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Rachael Clark, legal intern of the Montana Defender Project for representing Morris Poncelet in this matter and also Robert L. Deschamps, county attorney from Missoula for representing the State.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. David Lee Priddy, Defendant.
    NO. DC 94-057B
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On September 11, 1995, it was the judgment of the Court that the defendant be committed to the Department of Corrections for a period of eight (8) years for the offense of Issuing a Bad Check, a Felony Common Scheme. It is the recommendation that the defendant be considered for placement in the Intensive Supervised Probation Program, or a Pre-Release Center. Should the defendant be granted parole, he must comply with all conditions set forth in this court’s original judgment of August 15, 1994. The defendant shall receive credit for 64 days served in pre-sentence incarceration, plus an additional credit of 30 days for that period of time he appeared to be complying with the rules of probation. Given the defendant’s numerous violations during his brief tenure as a probationer, the defendant is not to be given credit for time otherwise served on probation.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank David Lee Priddy for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. David Lee Priddy, Defendant.
    NO. 11262
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On August 30,1995, the Court found the defendant in violation of the conditions of his suspended sentence for the offense of Issuing a Bad Check - Common Scheme, a Felony, and it is the judgment of the Court that defendant’s prior suspended sentence is hereby revoked and that the defendant be and he is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of eight (8) years for suitable placement. The sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Flathead County Cause No. DC 94-057(B). It is the recommendation of the Court that as conditions of any release or early parole that the defendant shall abide by all of the conditions and provisions of the judgment done in open court on the 8th day of February, 1995, and the judgment done in Flathead County Cause No. DC 94-257(B). The defendant shall receive credit for eighteen (18) days jail time which he has previously served.

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank David Lee Priddy for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Geramy Ranta, Defendant.
    NO. DC 94-639
    DECISION
   On June 8, 1995, it was ordered that the defendant, Geramy Ranta, be committed to the Department of Corrections and Human Services for the term of five (5) years for the offense of Criminal Mischief (Felony) to run consecutively with the sentence received in Criminal Cause Number DC 94-543. Defendant shall receive credit for time spent in the Yellowstone County Detention Facility at Billings, Montana, for 18 days. The defendant shall make restitution in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Seven Dollars and 10/100 ($1,977.10). Said restitution shall be made payable in monthly payments on a schedule to be supervised and regulated by the Adult Probation and Parole Field Services and to be made payable to the Clerk of Court, P.O. Box 35030 (Room 704, Courthouse), Billings, Montana, 59107, and the said Clerk of Court is herby ordered to distribute the money collected to: Douglas Norwick, Jr., 930 Rochester, Billings, Montana 59101 $1,977.10. The defendant is further notified that the law imposes upon him the duty to pay a supervisory fee of One Hundred Twenty Dollars ($120.00) a year prorated at Ten Dollars ($10.00) a month for the number of months that he is hereunder Supervision. This fee is payable to the Clerk of Court. It is further ordered that the defendant shall pay to the Clerk of District Court the sum of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) for this conviction pursuant to statute 46-18-236, Montana Code Annotated. The Clerk of District Court is hereby ordered to deliver the said sum of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) to the Treasurer of this County.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was represented by John Kennedy, deputy county attorney from Billings.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Geramy Ranta for representing himself in this matter and also John Kennedy, deputy county attorney from Billings for representing the State.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Geramy Ranta, Defendant.
    NO. DC 94-543
    DECISION
   On June 8, 1995, the defendant was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for the term of five (5) years for the offense of Count I: Burglary (Felony). The defendant is further notified that the law imposes upon him the duty to pay a supervisory fee of One Hundred Twenty Dollars ($120.00) a year prorated at Ten Dollars ($10.00) a month for the number of months that he is hereunder Supervision. This fee is payable to the Clerk of Court. It is further ordered that the defendant shall pay to the Clerk of District Court the sum of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) for this conviction pursuant to statute 46-18-236, Montana Code Annotated. The Clerk of District Court is hereby ordered to deliver the said sum of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) to the Treasurer of this County. On June 8, 1995, the defendant was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for the term of six (6) months to run concurrently with Count I of this criminal cause for the offense of Count II: Theft (Misdemeanor). It is further ordered that the defendant shall pay to the Clerk of District Court the sum of Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) for this conviction pursuant to statute 46-18-236, Montana Code Annotated. The Clerk of District Court is hereby ordered to deliver the said sum of Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) to the Treasurer of this County.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was represented by John Kennedy, deputy county attorney from Billings.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Geramy Ranta for representing himself in this matter and also John Kennedy, deputy county attorney from Billings for representing the State.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Geramy Ranta, Defendant.
    NO. DC 95-278
    DECISION
   On October 10, 1995, it was ordered that the defendant, Geramy Ranta, be committed to the Department of Corrections for the term of two (2) years for the offense of Theft, a felony, to run consecutively with the sentences received in criminal cause number DC 94-543 and DC 94-639. The defendant is further notified that the law imposes upon him the duty to pay a supervisory fee of One Hundred Twenty Dollars ($120.00) a year prorated at Ten Dollars ($10.00) a month for the number of months that he is hereunder Supevision. This fee is payable to the Clerk of Court. It is further ordered that the defendant shall pay to the Clerk of District Court the sum of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) for this conviction pursuant to statute 46-18-236, Montana Code Annotated, plus the sum of five dollars ($5.00) for Court Automation Surcharge. The Clerk of District Court is hereby ordered to deliver the said sum of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) to the Treasurer of this County.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was represented by John Kennedy, deputy county attorney from Billings.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be amended as follows: The defendant shall be sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a period of ten (10) years to run consecutive to criminal cause numbers DC 94-543 and DC 94-639.

The reason for the amendment is because of the defendant’s extensive prior criminal history and demonstrated need by the pre-sentence investigation for a long period of supervision.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Geramy Ranta for representing himself in this matter and also John Kennedy, deputy county attorney from Billings for representing the State.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Becky Lynn Richards, Defendant.
    NO. 10407
    DECISION
   On June 1, 1993, it was the judgment of the Court that the defendant, Becky Lynn Richards is hereby sentenced as follows: Count 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9 through 11, 13 through 26, 28 through 30, 32, 33, 35, 37 through 45, 47, 48, 50 through 52, and 55 through 59: That the defendant is sentenced to a term of ten (10) years on each count in the Women’s Correctional Facility at Warm Springs, Montana, that, however, the defendant’s sentences on each count are hereby suspended. Count 8: That the defendant is sentenced to a term of six (6) months in the Missoula County Jail in Missoula, Montana, that, however, defendant’s sentence is hereby suspended. Count 60: That the defendant is sentenced to a term of life imprisonment in the Women’s Correctional Facility at Warm Springs, Montana. Said sentences in Count 1 through 4 and Count 6 shall run consecutively with each other. Count 7, 9 through 11, 13 through 26, 28 through 30, 32, 33, 35, 37 through 45, 47, 48, 50 through 52, and 55 through 59 shall run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentences imposed in Count 1 through 4 and Count 6. Said sentence in count 8 shall run concurrently with all previously imposed sentences. All of said sentences shall run consecutively to the sentence imposed in Count 60. The terms and conditions of probation are as follows: 1. The Court retains jurisdiction and the right to impose additional conditions; 2. That the defendant shall never knowingly at any time during the period of suspension, engage in any conduct whatsoever offensive to the laws of the State of Montana, any other states or any of the laws of the United States of America, and conduct herself as a good citizen at all times; 3. That during the period of suspension of this sentence the defendant shall remain under the jurisdiction of this Court and of the Department of Corrections and Human Services, Adult Parole and Probation Bureau of the State of Montana, and the defendant shall be and is subject to all the rules and regulations of said department. In the event the defendant breaches any of the rules of said department or violates any laws of this State or any other states or the Federal Government, she shall be subject to immediate arrest and thereupon brought before this Court to determine if this Court should revoke the suspension of this sentence as in the judgment of this Court which will then seem proper, lawful and just; 4. That the defendant shall make restitution through the Clerk of the District Court in the amount of Sixty-eight Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-eight and 60/100 Dollars ($68,968.60), according to a schedule as set by her Probation Officer. Any proceeds, any royalties or any offers of any type of monetary benefit to the Department relating in any way to the commission of these offenses is to be assigned first to pay the restitution to Jeff Richards and second to pay restitution to Richards Logging. Defendant shall be designated a dangerous offender for the purposes of parole. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail for March 24, 1992 (in and out same day) and from April 29,1993, through date of sentencing, June 1,1993, in the amount of thirty-five (35) days. It is further ordered that as restitution in this matter is received by the Clerk of Court, the Clerk may pro rate partial payments to the victims. The restitution shall be first disbursed to Jeff Richards of P.O. Box 321, Seeley Lake, MT 59868, in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) and shall be disbursed second to Richards Logging of Seeley Lake, MT 59868, in the amount of Sixty-seven Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-eight and 60/100 Dollars ($67,468.60).

On March 7,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Stephanie Oblander, legal intern of the Montana Defender Project. The state was represented by Robert L. Deschamps, county attorney of Missoula.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

' After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of March, 1996.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Stephanie Oblander, legal intern of the Montana Defender Project for representing Becky Richards in this matter and also Robert Deschamps, county attorney of Missoula for representing the State.


author: JUSTICE HUNT

text:
    JAMES DEAN MOODY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NORTHLAND ROYALTY CO. and THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY, Defendants and Respondents.
    No. 96-187.
    Submitted on Briefs October 31, 1996.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1997.
    Decided January 3, 1997.
    54 St.Rep. 43.
    281 Mont. 26.
    930 P.2d 1100.
    For Appellant: Jeff R. Lynch, Lynch & Chisholm, Great Falls.

      For Respondent: Robert J. Emmons, Emmons & Sullivan, Great Falls; (Northland); Melanie Symons, Department of Labor & Industry, Helena.
   JUSTICE HUNT

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Appellant James Dean Moody (Moody) appeals the order of the Ninth Judicial District Court, Glacier County, affirming the decision of the Board of Labor Appeals that Moody be denied unemployment benefits because his discharge from employment was a result of his own misconduct.

We reverse.

The sole issue for our review is whether Moody was discharged for misconduct.

FACTS

In November 1994, Moody was employed by Northland Royalty Company (Northland) as a gas plant field operator. Moody received a monthly salary of $2500.

On November 19, 1994, Moody informed his supervisor at North-land, Bill Sheehan, that one of Northland’s competitors had offered Moody a job. Sheehan told Moody that they would discuss the situation on the following Monday, November 21, 1994.

On Monday morning Moody explained to Sheehan that he would remain working for Northland if he were given a $100 per month raise. Moody stated that he needed a decision from Northland by noon that day. Moody informed Sheehan that if he left Northland he would take with him Randy Brown, Northland’s only other field operator. When Sheehan asked what would happen if Moody did not get a raise, Moody replied that “they would address that when the time came and would live with the decision.”

Later Monday morning Sheehan approached Randy Brown, Northland’s other field operator. Brown informed Sheehan that he, like Moody, had been offered a job by the competitor. Sheehan then offered Brown a raise, which Brown accepted.

Next, Sheehan drove to the Four Corners Cafe to make some phone calls. Sheehan had explained to Moody earlier that he would need to contact Northland’s Billings office to discuss the situation before giving Moody an answer. One of the calls Sheehan made was to Steve Jackson, who had recently expressed his interest in working for Northland as a field operator. Jackson had previously been discharged by the same competitor now offering employment to Moody. Sheehan offered Jackson Moody’s field operator position with North-land, which Jackson accepted.

While at the Four Comers Cafe that morning, Sheehan received a call from Moody, who advised Sheehan that he would not be quitting Northland and that he had already declined the competitor’s offer. Sheehan told Moody that they would discuss the matter when Sheehan got back to the field.

When Sheehan returned to the field shortly after noon, he asked Moody to join him for a ride in his track. After they had driven only a short distance, Moody asked Sheehan what was going on. Sheehan replied, ‘You’re done,” and when Moody asked why, Sheehan informed Moody that it was “about money” and that Jackson was “cheaper.” Moody’s employment with Northland was terminated.

Moody’s starting salary with the competitor would have been $ 1800 per month. When Moody informed Sheehan about the competitor’s employment offer, he did not disclose the competitor’s salary offer.

On November 21, 1994, Moody filed for unemployment benefits. Initially, the Department of Labor and Industry, Unemployment Insurance Division, determined that Moody was eligible for unemployment benefits. After Northland protested this determination, the Department of Labor and Industry reconsidered Moody’s eligibility and issued a redetermination letter which stated that Moody was not eligible for unemployment benefits. The benefits examiner concluded that Moody had been the moving party in the employment separation. The examiner further concluded that Moody’s voluntary separation was without good cause attributable to, or the fault of, Northland, and that therefore Moody was deemed disqualified to receive unemployment benefits.

After the redetermination, the matter proceeded to two separate hearings conducted by the Legal Services Division of the Department of Labor and Industry. At the first hearing, Appeals Referee James L. Keil determined that the benefits examiner had erred in concluding that Moody was the moving party responsible for his separation from employment. Keil concluded that Moody had been discharged from employment.

At the second hearing, on May 9, 1995, the issue before Appeals Referee David Frazier was whether Moody was qualified or disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Specifically, Frazier considered whether or not Moody was discharged for “misconduct” as that term is defined and interpreted in the Montana Code Annotated and the Administrative Rules of Montana. Frazier concluded that Moody had been discharged for reasons other than “misconduct,” and reversed the benefits examiner’s determination that Moody be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

Northland appealed Referee Frazier’s decision to the Board of Labor Appeals. The Board initially affirmed Frazier’s decision on June 26, 1995, but then issued another statement on September 20, 1995, reversing itself and overturning Frazier’s decision.

On October 18, 1995, Moody submitted a petition for judicial review to the Ninth Judicial District Court, Glacier County, requesting that the court reverse the decision of the Board of Labor Appeals. The District Court affirmed the Board of Labor Appeals on March 12, 1996. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Recently, in Hafner v. Montana Department of Labor and Industry, (1996), [280 Mont. 95], 929 P.2d 233, this Court stated that “the question of whether conduct rises to the level of ‘misconduct’ is a question of law which this Court reviews for correctness.” Hafner, 929 P.2d at 236. This standard we enunciated in Hafner required us to reverse two previous cases, Connolly v. Montana Bd. of Labor Appeals (1987), 226 Mont. 201, 734 P.2d 1211 and Stine v. Western Federal Savings Bank (1994), 266 Mont. 83, 879 P.2d 53:

Having reviewed this issue [of whether the determination of “misconduct” is a question of fact or a question of law] in the present case, we reverse Connolly and Stine to the extent that they hold that “misconduct” is a question of fact[.]

Hafner, 929 P.2d at 236. We explained that

[t]he question of whether an employee has disregarded standards of behavior, been careless or negligent, or violated company rules is a question of fact. Whether those “facts” then constitute “misconduct” involves interpretation and application of the Administrative Rules of Montana and is a legal conclusion reviewable by this Court.

Hafner, 929 P.2d at 236. Therefore, we must determine whether the District Court’s conclusion that Moody was discharged for “misconduct” is correct.

DISCUSSION

Moody concedes that the undisputed facts of this case, stated in Referee Frazier’s written decision and set forth in the Facts section of this Opinion, are supported by substantial evidence. Moody contends, however, that these facts do not constitute “misconduct” as that term is defined and interpreted in the Montana Code Annotated and the Administrative Rules of Montana. We agree.

Section 39-51-2303, MCA, provides in relevant part:

An individual shall be disqualified for benefits after being discharged:
(1) for misconduct connected with the individual’s work or affecting the individual’s employment....

Section 39-51-2303(1), MCA. The Administrative Rules of Montana define “misconduct.” Section 24.11.460, ARM, states, in pertinent part:

DISQUALIFICATION FOR MISCONDUCT
(1) Misconduct as used in § 39-51-2303, M.C.A., includes, but is not limited to, the following conduct by a Claimant:
(a) Willful or wanton disregard of the rights, title, and interest of a fellow employee or the employer;...

Section 24.11.460(l)(a), ARM. Section 24.11.461, ARM, identifies a number of specific acts which constitute “misconduct.” Relevant for our purposes here is:

(c) Dishonesty related to employment, including but not limited to, deliberate falsification of company records, theft, deliberate deception or lying;....

Section 24.11.461(l)(c), ARM. The Board of Labor Appeals, in its September 21, 1995 decision finding Moody ineligible for unemployment benefits stated:

Testimony and evidence before the Board clearly indicate that the claimant tried to negotiate a raise by giving his employer an ultimatum requiring a raise within several hours and by also threatening to leave taking the only other employee of the company with him. This conduct was deliberate and was a disregard of the interests of the employer. That fact is underscored by the evidence that the claimant was making $2,500.00 per month with North-land and had only been offered $1,800.00 per month by the competitor. It is found that claimant’s actions and statements amounted to deception related to his employment. It is concluded that such action by the claimant arose [sic] to the level of misconduct according to 39-51-2303 MCA, and ARM 24.11.461.

We do not agree that Moody’s actions “arose to the level of misconduct according to 39-51-2303 MCA, and ARM 24.11.461.”

In the briefs submitted to this Court and in the Board’s findings, much was made of Moody’s failure to disclose to Northland that his job offer included a monthly salary $700 dollars less than his existing monthly salary. Both Northland and the Board characterize this non-disclosure as “dishonesty related to employment.” However, the record reveals that Northland did not know, prior to terminating Moody’s employment, that Moody had failed to disclose this salary disparity. Therefore, even if this failure to disclose can be considered a deceptive or dishonest act as contemplated by the definition of “misconduct,” it logically could not have been a basis for Moody’s discharge; Moody could not possibly have been terminated for dishonesty or deception if Northland did not know prior to termination that Moody was or had been dishonest or deceitful.

Both the Board and Northland have characterized Moody’s statement that he “had to have a decision by noon that day” as an “ultimatum,” and his statement that he would “take” Randy Brown with him if he left Northland as a “threat.” They argue that the statements constitute misconduct. There is no indication in the record that Moody did not need a decision by noon. The record establishes that Sheehan was operating under the understanding that Moody did need a decision by noon. The appeals referees and the Board did not find, and we cannot locate in the record, any facts showing that Northland believed prior to terminating Moody that his “ultimatum” was untrue. We fail to see the negative connotation given by Northland and the Board to Moody’s statement that he “had to have a decision by noon that day.” This statement did not constitute misconduct.

Similarly, Northland and the Board have characterized Moody’s statement that he would “take” Randy Brown with him if he left Northland as a “threat.” Brown is an adult. There is no evidence that Moody had any control over Brown’s actions. It is unreasonable to believe that Moody could have “taken” Brown with him if Brown himself did not want to leave Northland. Instead, it is reasonable to believe that Brown could have left Northland of his own volition; indeed, he had been offered a job by the competitor, as Sheehan discovered shortly after speaking with Moody. Further, nothing prevented Northland from taking such steps as were necessary to counteract Moody’s “threat” and secure Brown’s continuing employment, as in fact occurred when Sheehan sought out Brown and gave him a raise. Moody’s statement that he would “take” Brown with him if he left Northland cannot reasonably be considered a threat to Northland’s interests, and did not constitute misconduct.

The parties have characterized Moody’s conduct differently. Our review of the undisputed facts establishes that Moody essentially demanded a raise from his employer, Northland. Moody’s particular actions and statements in demanding a raise may well have been undertaken in order to exert leverage in the bargaining process. Moody may have been somewhat deceptive. We cannot, however, conclude that upon the particular facts of this case Moody’s conduct fits within the definition of “misconduct” contemplated by §§ 24.11.460 and 461, ARM, and § 39-51-2303, MCA. Moreover, and more importantly with respect to the issue in this case, we cannot conclude that Northland fired Moody for “misconduct.” When North-land terminated Moody’s employment, it was largely unaware of conduct which it only later, after Moody was terminated, determined was dishonest or deceptive. The court erred in affirming the incorrect conclusion of the Board of Labor Appeals that Moody was discharged for misconduct.

Reversed.

CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE, JUSTICES ERDMANN, GRAY and LEAPHART concur.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Robert Lysle Rose, Defendant.
    NO. DC 94-2542
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On November 8, 1995, it was the judgment of the Court that for the offense of Aggravated Assault, twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison with ten (10) years suspended. For the felony offense of Assault (Count VI), ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison with five (5) years suspended. For the felony offense of Assault (Count VII), ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison with five (5) years suspended. For the felony offense of Assault (Count VIII), ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison with five (5) years suspended. For the felony offense of Assault (Count IX), ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison with five (5) years suspended. That upon his release from prison, the defendant shall make restitution for damages incurred by the various victims as well as Court appointed counsel. Felony Counts II, III, IV and V alleging Criminal Endangerment are dismissed, and the defendant is certified non-dangerous for purposes of parole eligibility. The five sentences shall run concurrently. Upon his release from prison, the defendant shall make restitution in an amount to be determined by his parole officer which shall include the mandatory surcharges of $100.00. The defendant shall be given credit for any time served in the jail, the Beaverhead County Sheriff to advise the prison of this amount.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed and requested that his petition be dismissed.

It is hereby ordered that the petition is dismissed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Jose Delos Santos, Defendant.
    NO. DC 93-020
    DECISION
    DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.
   On February 3, 1994, it was ordered that the defendant is guilty and shall be sentenced to Montana State Prison as follows: Count I: Deliberate Homicide of Thelma Gebhardt, a Felony; Life in prison and an additional ten (10) years, to be served consecutively, under the authority of 46-18-221, MCA, for the use of a dangerous weapon in the commission of the crime. Count II: Deliberate Homicide of Walter Gebhardt, a Felony; Life in prison and an additional ten (10) years, to be served consecutively, under the authority of 46-18-221, MCA, for the use of a dangerous weapon in the commission of the crime. This sentence shall be served consecutively to Count I. Count III: Theft, a Felony; Ten (10) years in Montana State Penitentiary, to be served concurrently with Counts I and II. It is further ordered that, as allowed by 46-18-202(2), MCA, the defendant shall be ineligible for parole and participation in the supervised release program on these charges.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Jose Delos Santos, II for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Vincent David Stackhouse, Defendant.
    NO. DC 92-45N
    DECISION
   The above named defendant, Vincent David Stackhouse, was found guilty by jury trial of the offense of Incest, a felony in violation of45-5-507, M.C.A. The Court ordered that the defendant be imprisoned in the Montana State Prison for a term of twenty (20) years with fifteen (15) years suspended upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Sentence and Judgment dated April 19, 1993. The defendant was discharged from Montana State Prison on November 22,1995, having served, with credit for good time, five (5) years of the original twenty (20) year sentence. A petition to Revoke Suspended Sentence was filed on October 26,1995. Hearings on the Petition were held on November 15,1995 and November 22,1995. Afinal hearing was held on November 29,1995. The defendant admitted and the Court finds that the Defendant has violated the terms of the Sentence and Judgment. Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed, 1. The suspended portion of the Sentence and Judgment dated April 19, 1993, shall be revoked. 2. The defendant shall be sentenced to fifteen (15) years in the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge, Montana. 3. The defendant shall be remanded to the Lincoln County j ail for transport to the Montana State Prison. It is hereby further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the defendant shall be imprisoned in the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge, Montana, for a term of fifteen (15) years. Should the defendant become eligible for parole, the defendant shall comply with the terms and conditions as stated in the November 29, 1995 judgment.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (Section 45-18-904(3), MCA.) The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Vincent David Stackhouse for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Timothy Starnes, Defendant.
    NO. DC 94-567
    DECISION
   On May 3,1995, it was ordered that the defendant be committed to the Department of Corrections for the term of ten (10) years on each count to run concurrently with each other years. Defendant shall receive credit for time spent in the Yellowstone County Detention Facility at Billings, Montana, for 196 days. It is further ordered that because the defendant, while engaged in the commission of the offense of Count II: Criminal Endangerment (Felony) knowingly used a firearm, to wit: a handgun; he is hereby sentenced to the term of five (5) years to the Department of Corrections and Human Services under the authority of 46-18-221, Montana Code Annotated. This term shall be served consecutively with the term imposed for the commission of the crime of Count II: Criminal Endangerment (Felony) as charged in the Amended Information. It is further ordered that additional special conditions shall apply as stated in the May 3,1995 judgment.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed and requested that his petition be dismissed.

It is hereby ordered that the petition is dismissed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal


text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Jeremiah W. Thieszen, Defendant.
    NO. DC 95-231
    DECISION
   On October 13, 1995, the defendant, Jeremiah W. Thieszen was convicted in this Court of the crimes of Count I: Aggravated Kidnapping (Felony) and Count II: Robbery (Felony). It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said Jeremiah Thieszen be committed to the Department of Corrections pursuant to Section 46-18-201(e), Montana Code Annotated to be placed in an appropriate community based program, facility or a State Correctional Institution, for custody, care and treatment as follows: 1. On Count I: Aggravated Kidnapping (Felony) the defendant is hereby sentenced for the term of ten (10) years; It is further ordered that because the defendant, while engaged in the commission of the offense of Count I: Aggravated Kidnapping (Felony) knowingly used a weapon, to wit: a knife; he is hereby sentenced to the term of three (3) years to the Department of Corrections under the authority of 46-18-221, Montana Code Annotated. This term shall be served consecutively with the term imposed for the commission of the crimes of Count I: Aggravated Kidnapping (Felony) as charged in the Information. 2. On Count II: Robbery (Felony) the defendant is hereby sentenced for the term of ten (10) years to run consecutively with Count I of this criminal cause; It is further ordered that because the defendant, while engaged in the commission of the offense of Count II: Robbery (Felony) knowingly used a weapon, to wit: an iron skillet; he is hereby sentenced to the term of two (2) years to the Department of Corrections under the authority of 46-18-221, Montana Code Annotated. This term shall be served consecutively with the term imposed for the commission of the crimes of Count II: Robbery (Felony) as charged in the Information. 3. Defendant shall receive credit for time spent in Johnson County, Buffalo, Wyoming, and the Yellowstone County Detention Facility at Billings, Montana, for a combined total of 200 days. It is recommended that defendant Jeremiah Thieszen be considered for placement at the Swan River Correctional Training Center (boot camp). It is further recommended to the Department of Corrections to have said defendant evaluated to determine whether or not defendant should take medication for the medical problem of attention deficity hyperactivity disorder and recommends defendant be provided with all the resources available for psychological and psychiatric treatment for his mental health disorders, and that if the Department sees fit to release defendant for some sort of parole or other forms of non confinement, that the Department requires as a condition continued mental health treatment. It is further ordered that additional special conditions shall apply as stated in the October 13, 1995 judgment.

DATED this 19th day of March, 1996.

On March 8,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed and requested that his petition be dismissed.

It is hereby ordered that the petition is dismissed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of March, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus

Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock

Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal