text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 21st Judicial District. County of Ravalli.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Samuel T. Stanford, Defendant.
    NO. CR 94-45 DECISION
   On January 15, 1997, it was the sentence and judgment of the court as follows: 1. That the defendant is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the deferred imposition of sentence imposed on September 14, 1994 and on June 10, 1996 and the deferred imposition of sentence is hereby revoked; 2. The defendant is committed to the Department of Corrections and Human Services for appropriate placement into a community-based program, facility, or state correctional institution for a period of ten (10) years on each felony count, to run concurrently, with six (6) years on each count suspended subject to the existing conditions as set forth in the previous Judgments dated October 6, 1994 and June 10, 1996, with additional conditions as stated in the January 15, 1997 judgment. The Court hereby recommends the defendant be placed at a pre-release center. The defendant shall receive credit for 78 days for jail time served prior to this revocation sentencing.

On May 9,1997, 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 Jeff Knutson, 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.

DATED this 13th day of June, 1997.

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.

However, the Sentence Review Division does recommend that the defendant not be placed in Montana State Prison, but rather in a Pre-Release or the ISP program.

Done in open Court this 9th day of May, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Wm. Nels Swandal and Alternate Member, Hon. Robert Boyd.

The Sentence Review Board wishes. to thank Jeff Knutson^ legal intern of the Montana Defender Project, for representing Samuel T.‘ Stanford in this matter.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. David W. Thompson, Defendant.
    NO. 12018 DECISION
   On January 27,1997, it is the judgment of the Court that David William Thompson be and is hereby sentenced to a term of fifty (50) years in the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge, Montana. Additionally, pursuant to Section 46-18-221(1), M.C.A., for the use of a dangerous weapon during the commission of this offense, the defendant is sentenced to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison. Said sentence shall run consecutively with the sentence imposed. It is further ordered that the defendant shall register as a violent offender, pursuant to Section 46-23-504,46-23-505, and 46-23-506, M.C.A., with the Department of Institutions, Chief of Police, and Sheriff of the County wherein he resides for the remainder of his lifetime following his release from custody. The defendant shall further notify any law enforcement agency with whom he was last registered of any change in address as further set forth under the law and register with the Department of Institutions, Chief of Police and Sheriff if he should change his address during this registration period.'Further, 'pursuant to Section 44-6-103, M.C.A., the defendant shall provide a blood sample-to be used for DNA testing. That, however, twenty-five (25) years of defendant’s sentence is hereby suspended on the terms and conditions as stated in the January 27, 1997 judgment. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail from January 12,1996, through date of sentencing; January 27,1997’ in the amount of three hundred eighty-two (382) 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 disbursed to Missoula County Jail (medical costs) in the amount of Two Hundred Forty-seven and 55/100 Dollars ($247.55);: and the medical costs of the victim shall be disbursed as to be determined.

On May 8,1997, the'Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

DATED this 13th day of June, 1997.

The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was represented by Josh Van de Wetering, Deputy County Attorney of Missoula County.

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 May, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Wm. Neis Swandal and Alternate Member, Hon. Robert Boyd.

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank David W. Thompson for representing himself in this matter and also Josh Van de Wetering, Deputy County Attorney from Missoula County, for representing the State.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the, 16th Judicial District. County of Rosebud.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Doran L. Whitney, Defendant.
    NO. DC 96-023 DECISION
   On January 13, 1997, it waS the judgment of thé Court that'the defendant be and is hereby sentenced to the Montana Department of Corrections for a period of five (5) years with respect to the crime of Partner Assault, Regarding the crime of Resisting Arrest, the defendant be and is hereby sentenced to the Rosebud County Jail for a period of six (6) months, to run concurrent to the sentence imposed for Partner Assault. The defendant shall receive credit for 128 days for time served in the Rosebud County Jail prior to sentencing. During any period of parole granted the defendant upon his release from the Department of Corrections, shall have terms and conditions of parole as stated in the January 13, 1997 judgment.

On May 8,1997, 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 13th day of June, 1997.

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 May, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Wm. Neis Swandal and Alternate Member, Hon. Robert Boyd.

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Doran L. Whitney for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Everett Young Running Crane, Defendant.
    NO. DC 96-183 DECISION
    DATED this 13th day of June, 1997.
   On November 14, 1996, it was the judgment of this Court that the defendant is guilty of Driving under the influence of alcohol, 13 th offense, a felony. Wherefore, it is the sentence of the Court that the defendant be committed to the Department of Corrections for a period of ten (10) years, for appropriate placement by that agency. The defendant will be required to complete Intensive Chemical Dependency Treatment, Criminal Thinking Errors and Anger Management programs at Montana State Prison before being eligible for parole. Should the defendant be placed on probation and/or granted parole, he must comply with conditions as stated in the November 14, 1996 judgment. The defendant shall be given credit for one hundred fifty-five (155) days for time served in the Flathead County Detention Center pending final disposition in this matter.

On May 8,1997, 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.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the petition shall be dismissed without prejudice.

Done in open Court this 8th day of May, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Wm. Neis Swandal and Alternate Member, Hon. Robert Boyd.


text:
    AUGUST 1997 CALENDAR
    FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Johnnie D. Bales, Defendant.
    NO. 12226 DECISION
    DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.
   On June 9, 1997, it was the judgment of the court that Johnnie D. Bales be and is hereby sentenced to a term of forty (40) years on Count I: Negligent Homicide, a Felony, in the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge, Montana. It is the judgment of the court that Johnnie D. Bales be and is hereby sentenced to a term of six (6) months on Count II: Operating a Vehicle Without Valid Liability Insurance in Effect, a Misdemeanor, in the Missoula County Jail in Missoula, Montana. The sentences on Count I and II shall run concurrently with each other. Having been convicted of a felony within five (5) years pursuant to Section 46-18-501, to-wit: the defendant was convicted of Possession of a concealed weapon, a felony, on May 31, 1991; the defendant is hereby declared a persistent felony offender. That, however, twenty (20) years of the defendant’s sentence on Count I is hereby suspended on terms and conditions as stated in the June 9,1997 judgment. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail from July 3,1996, through December 2,1996; in the amount of one hundred fifty-three (153) days.

On August 21, 1997, 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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton.

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Johnnie D. Bales for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. William John Blodgett, Defendant.
    NO. 12430 DECISION
    DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.
   On March 26, 1997, it was the judgment of the court that William John Blodgett be and is hereby sentenced to a term of ten (10) years on Count I: Theft, a Felony, in the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge, Montana; to a term of six (6) months each on Count III: Resisting Arrest, a Misdemeanor, and VI: Driving Without a Valid Driver’s License, a Misdemeanor, and to a term of ten (10) days each on Count IV and V in the Missoula County Jail in Missoula, Montana. The sentences shall run concurrently with each other. It is the recommendation of the Court that prior to the defendant becoming eligible for parole or early release that the defendant shall successfully complete all phases of the chemical dependency program and any other mental-health program deemed appropriate by the Montana State Prison. It is also the recommendation of the Court that as conditions of any par ole or early release that the defendant shall pay restitution as ordered under the juvenile, matter in the approximate amount of Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000.00) and that the defendant shall abide by all supervision recommendations as set by the defendant’s Parole Officer. The defendant must sign a release to verify compliance prior to his release. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail from December 14,1996, through date of sentencing, March 26, 1997, in the amount of one hundred two (102) days.

On August 21, 1997, the defendant’? 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 froma decision of the Sentence Reyiew 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 adyanced 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 he affirmed. ... . ,

Done in open Court this 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock,'Member,-Hon.'Richard Phillip's ■ • and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langtoh

The Sentence Review Board wishes to .thank William Blodgett -for representing himself in this matter. , • . . .....


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 20th Judicial District. County of Lake.

      STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Kenneth. J. Burland, Sr., Defendant.
    NO. DC 79-69 DECISION
    DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.
   On February 26, 1997, it was ordered that the suspension of sentence heretofore entered on January 9, 1980 and revoked on November 1, 1995 is again revoked. It is further ordered that the defendant be punished by confinement in the Montana State Prison for a term of ten (10) years for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a Felony, as specified in MCA 45-5-503, with none suspended. The defendant shall receive credit for jail time served on this revocation, which as of the date of this Judgment totals forty-two (42) days and credit as set forth in the Judgment dated November 1,1995 of three (3) years two hundred ten (210) days, for a total of three (3) years'two hundred fifty-two (252) days. The defendant shall not receive credit for any other elapsed probationary time due to his violations of his probation. The court recommends that the defendant not be colisidered eligible for parole until he has successfully completed the sexual offender treatment and the Addictive Diseases Study Program at the Montana State Prison. The sentence imposed above shall run consecutive to the sentence imposed in DC 96-65.

On August 21, 1997, 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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Kenneth Burland for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 1st Judicial District. County of Lewis & Clark.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Edward R. Cowan, Defendant.
    NO. BDC 97-59 DECISION
   On May29,1997, 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 thirty (30) years, with twenty (20) years suspended upon the conditions hereinafter set forth. The Court recommends the defendant not be granted parole until he has completed the sex offender treatment program at Montana State Prison. The defendant is granted ninety-two (92) days’ credit for time served prior to sentencing. Conditions of defendant’s parole/probation are stated in the May 29,1997 judgment.

DATED this 1st day of October, 1997.

On August 21, 1997, 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 deputy county attorney Michael Menahan.

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.

The Sentence Review Division does request that the sentencing judge clarify whether the defendant is required to complete phase I and II of the Sex Offender Treatment program at Montana State Prison before being eligible for parole.

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.

Done in open Court this 21st day of August, 1997.

Alternate Chairman, Hon. Robert Boyd, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Edward R. Cowan for representing himself in this matter and also deputy county attorney Michael Menahan for representing the State.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Justin Michael Davis, Defendant.
    NO. 11988 DECISION
   On April 30,1997, it was the judgment of the court that defendant’s prior deferred sentences are hereby revoked and that the defendant be and he is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years on each count for suitable placement, which may include an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correctional institution. The sentences shall run concurrently with each other. It is the recommendation of the Court that as conditions of any parole or early release that the defendant shall abide by all conditions and provisions as stated in the April 30, 1997 judgment. Due to the defendant’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his deferred 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 February 5, 1996, through March 29,1996; from May 9,1996, through May 15,1996; from June 12,1996, through June 18, 1996; and from April 16, 1997, through date of sentencing, April 30, 1997, for eighty-three (83) days jail time which he has previously served.

DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.

On August 21, 1997, 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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Justin Michael Davis for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Michael Adair Ellenburg, Defendant.
    NO. 11938 DECISION
   On June 12, 1996, it was the judgment of the court that Michael Adair Ellenburg be and is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years for suitable placement, which may include an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correctional institution. It is the judgment of the court that Michael Adair Ellenburg be and is hereby sentenced to a term of one (1) year on Count II and to a term of six (6) months on Count III in the Missoula County Jail in Missoula, Montana. The sentences shall run concurrently with each other. It is the recommendation of the Court that the defendant shall be placed at the Montana State Prison for treatment. It is the recommendation of the Court that when the defendant is placed on parole or released in a community setting the conditions and provisions of the suspended sentences shall apply. That, however, defendant’s sentence on Count II and all but seven (7) days of defendant’s sentence on Count III is hereby suspended on terms and conditions as stated in the June 12,1996 judgment. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail from December 30, 1995, through January 1, 1996; and from May 22, 1996, through date of.sentencing,' June 12, 1996, in the amount of twenty-five (25) days. ■ .•

DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.

On August 21, 1997, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Gourt. . '

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 thé 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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Michael Adair Ellenburg for representing himself in this matter. ’


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 20th Judicial District. County of Sanders.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Joseph Elmore, Defendant.
    NO. DC 95-06 DECISION
   On January 28, 1997, it was the judgment of the court that the defendant’s prior five (5) year suspended sentence is hereby revoked, and that the defendant Joseph Bishop Elmore is hereby sentenced to a term of five (5) years in the Montana State Prison at Deer Lodge, Montana, no part of which is suspended. The defendant shall receive credit for fifty (50) days time already served in the Sanders County Jail as of the date of this judgment. The Court recommends that all conditions of this .Court’s original judgment dated February 28,1995 be made-conditions of any parole granted to the defendant. The Court having considered Section 46-18-201(4) MCA, the Court expressly denies the defendant credit toward his sentence'for any elapsed time while the defendant was under his initial probationary sentence. The Court’s reasons for denying the defendant credit are the defendant’s repeated and serious violations of the terms and conditions of his probation, and the defendant’s commission of new criminal offenses since being placed on probation.

On August 21, 1997, 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 11th day of September, 1997.

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." (Section45-18-904(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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. ¿Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Joseph Elmore for representing himself in this matter.'


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Higinio Gonzalez, Defendant.
    NO. DC 96-367 DECISION
   On January 10,1997, it was therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed: 1. On Count I: Deliberate Homicide (Felony) defendant is sentenced pursuant to 41-5-206(8) to the Department of Corrections for LIFE. The department shall confine the youth in whatever institution that it considers proper, including a state youth correctional facility under the procedures of 52-5-111. 2. On Count II: Robbery (Felony) defendant is hereby pursuant to 41-5-206(8) sentenced to the Department of Corrections for Thirty (30) years to run concurrently with Count I. It is further ordered that because the defendant, while engaged in the commission of the offense of Count II: Robbery (Felony) Imowingly used a firearm, to wit: a .22 caliber handgun; he is hereby pursuant to 41-5-206(8) and 46-18-221 sentenced to the Department of Corrections to the term of ten (10) years. The sentence shall run concurrently with Count I of this criminal cause. However, this term of ten (10) years imprisonment shall be served consecutively with the term-imposed for Count II: Robbery (Felony); The Department of Corrections shall confine the’youth in whatever institution that it considers proper, including a state youth correctional facility-under the procedures of 52-5-111. 3. Defendant shall receive credit for time spent incarcerated for 261-days. It is further ordered that parole eligibility shall he determined -by the Department of Corrections and the applicable sentencing statutes specifically 46-23-201. It. is further-ordered-that should the defendant be paroled, additional conditions shall apply which are stated in the January 10, 1997 judgment. 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 each conviction pursuant to the statute 46-18-236, Montana Code Annotated, plus the sum of Five Dollars ($5.00) for each conviction Court Automated Surcharge. The Clerk of District Court is hereby ordered to deliver the said sum of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) for each conviction to the Treasurer of this county. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that if the defendant fails to comply with any of the above conditions, a bench warrant will be issued, the defendant apprehended, and the said defendant will be required to appear before this Court for further proceedings.

DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.

On August 22, 1997, 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 attorney Roberta Drew. The state was represented by Deputy County Attorney Joe Coble.

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 22nd day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank attorney Roberta Drew for representing Higinio Gonzalez in this matter and also Deputy County Attorney Joe Coble for representing the State.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Steven Earl Goodsell, Defendant.
    NO. 12520 DECISION
   On April 1,1997, it was the judgment of the court that Steven Earl Goodsell be and is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of twenty-five (25) years for suitable placement, which may include an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correctional institution. It is further ordered that the defendant shall register as a violent offender, pursuant to Section 46-23-504, 46-23-505, and 46-23-506, M.C.A., with the Department of Institutions, Chief of Police, and Sheriff of the county wherein he resides for the remainder of his lifetime following his release from custody. The defendant shall further notify any law enforcement agency with whom he was last registered of any change in address as further set forth under the law and register with the Department of Institutions, Chief of Police and Sheriff if he should change his address during this registration period. Further, pursuant to Section 44-6-103, M.C.A., the defendant shall provide a blood sample to be used for DNA testing. That, however, ten (10) years of defendant’s sentence is hereby suspended on the terms and conditions as listed in the April 1, 1997 judgment. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail from January 24,1997, through date of sentencing, April 1, 1997, in the amount of sixty-eight (68) 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 disbursed as to be determined.

DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.

On August 21, 1997, 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 via phone conference call from Spur, TX., 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.

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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Steven Earl Goodsell for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Mineral.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Larry J. Goodwin, Defendant.
    NO. DC 96-14 DECISION
   On June 12,1997, it was the judgment of this court that the defendant, Larry Jerry Goodwin, is guilty of the felony offenses of Robbery, Felony Assault and Criminal Endangerment as specified in the Amended Information. It is hereby ordered that on Count I, Robbery the defendant be and he is by this order hereby sentenced to a term of ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge, Montana. On Count II, Felony Assault and Count III, Criminal Endangerment, the defendant is likewise sentenced to terms of ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison on each count. The foregoing prison sentences are hereby ordered to run consecutive to each other for a total sentence of thirty (30) years in the Montana State Prison and those nineteen (19) recommended conditions set forth on pages 5 and 6 of the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report, entry and successful completion of all chemical dependency or anger management programs which the staff at the Montana State Prison deem necessary are hereby made conditions of any release on parole or otherwise which the defendant may be granted. The defendant is ’given credit for 216 days served in custody as of this date and remanded to the Mineral County Sheriff and the Montana Department of Corrections for execution of this sentence.

DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.

On August. 21, 1997, 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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon! Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Membér, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Larry Goodwin for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.

      STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Kevin Gundrum, Defendant.
    NO. DC 87-004 DECISION
   On May 15,1997, it was the judgment of this court: 1) In Cause No. DC 87-004(B), that the defendant be incarcerated in the Montana State Prison for three (3) years for the offense of Issuing a Bad Check, a Felony Common Scheme. As conditions of parole, the defendant must comply with all requirements imposed by this court’s judgments of March 24,1987, May 3,1989, and May 23,1989. The defendant is to be given credit for 111 days served in custody pending final disposition in these two causes. Given the nature of his violations and the magnitude of his financial obligations in this matter, he is not to be given credit for time otherwise served on probation.

On August 21, 1997, 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 11th day of September, 1997.

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.)

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be amended to three (3) years incarceration to the Department of Corrections instead of Montana State Prison. The Sentence Review Division also recommends Pre-Release for the defendant.

Reasons for the amendment are so that the defendant maybe able to pay restitution.

Done in open Court this 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Kevin Guridrum for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Kevin Gundrum, Defendant.
    NO. DC 89-037 DECISION
   On May 15, 1997, it was the judgment of this court: 2) that the defendant be incarcerated in the Montana State Prison for twelve (12) years for the offense of Burglary and Forgery, a felony. As conditions of parole, the defendant must comply with all requirements imposed by this Court’s Judgments of March 24, 1987, May 3, 1989, and May 23, 1989. The defendant is to be given credit for 111 days served in custody pending final disposition in these two causes. Given the nature of his violations and the magnitude of his financial obligations in this matter, he is not to be given credit for time otherwise served on probation.

On August 21, 1997, 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.)

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be amended to twelve (12) years incarceration to the Department of Corrections instead of Montana State Prison. The Sentence Review Division also recommends Pre-Release for the defendant.

Reasons for the amendment are so that the defendant may be able to pay restitution.

Done in open Court this 21st day of August, 1997.

DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Kevin Gundrum for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 6th Judicial District. County of Park.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Nelson Jay Gutierrez, Defendant.
    NO. CR 96-14 DECISION
    DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.
   On December 6, 1996, the defendant, Nelson Jay Gutierrez, was sentenced to Montana State Prison for a period of ten (10) years for the offense of felony driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant shall not be eligible for parole for the first five (5) years of his sentence and until he has completed a chemical dependency program at Montana State Prison and his counselor believes defendant will not be a danger to the public if he is paroled. Defendant’s conditions of parole are stated in the December 6, 1996 judgment. That defendant shall be given credit for thirty-one (31) days in the Park County Jail.

On August 21, 1997, 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. The defendant shall receive credit for 30 days spent at an inpatient treatment center prior to sentencing.

Done in open Court this 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Nelson Jay Gutierrez for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.

      STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. David Ray Hill, Defendant.
    NO. 12064 DECISION
    DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.
   On April 11, 1997, it was ordered that the defendant is sentenced to the Montana State Prison for the period of ten (10) years for the offense of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, a Felony. This sentence is to run consecutively with other sentences and more specifically with Cause Number BDC 96-442. Defendant shall be subject to conditions as stated in the April 11, 1997 judgment.

On August 21, 1997, 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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank David Ray Hill for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Robert Hubbard, Defendant.
    NO. 12577 DECISION
   On May 1, 1997, it was the judgment of the court that Robert Hubbard be and is hereby sentenced to a term of five (5) years in the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge, Montana. The sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Cause No. 12632. The court further finds that for purposes of parole that the defendant is a non-violent offender. That, however, three (3) years of defendant’s sentence is hereby suspended on terms and conditions as stated in the May 1,1997 judgment. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail from February 27, 1997, through date of sentencing, April 15, 1997, in the amount of forty-eight (48) days.

On August 22, 1997 , the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.

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 22nd day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton '

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


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Robert Hubbard, Defendant.
    NO. 12632 DECISION
   On April 15, 1997, it was the judgment of the court that Robert Hubbard be and is hereby sentenced to a term of five (5) years in the Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge, Montana. The sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Caiise-NO. 12577. The Court finds that for purposes of parole that the defendant is a non-violent offender. That, however, three (3) years of defendant’s sentence is hereby suspended on terms and conditions" as stated in the April 15, 1997 judgment. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail from February 27,1997, through date of sentencing, April 15,1997, in the amount of forty-eight (48) 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 victim. The restitution shall be disbursed to Gabrial Woods of 1520 W. Casino Rd. #D305, Everett, WA, in the amount of Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00).

On August 22, 1997, 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.1

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 11th day of September, 1997.

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

Done in open Court this 22nd day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

" The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Robert Hubbard for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Robert J. Hurt, Defendant.
    NO. DC 96-695 DECISION
   On April 18, 1997, it was therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said Robert Jason Hurt be punished by imprisonment in the Montana State Prison at Deer Lodge, Montana, for the term of twenty (20) years. Defendant shall receive credit for time spent in the Yellowstone County Detention Facility at Billings, Montana, for 226 days. It is the recommendation of this court that the defendant Robert Jason Hurt not be considered for parole, pursuant to Section 46-18-202, Montana Code Annotated, until said defendant has successfully completed Phase I of the Sex Offender Treatment Program. It is further ordered that the execution of ALL BUT TEN (10) YEARS of said prison sentence this day imposed on said defendant, as hereinabove set forth, be, and the same hereby is SUSPENDED, and said defendant is hereby placed on probation for ALL BUT TEN (10)YEARS of said period of TWENTY (20) YEARS, and the court retains jurisdiction of said defendant in the above-entitled cause during the entire term of said imprisonment above-mentioned, and ALL BUT TEN (10)YEARS of said prison sentence is suspended upon conditions as set forth in the April 18, 1997 judgment to be performed and kept by said defendant during this term of probation. It is further ordered that the said Robert Jason Hurt be, and he is hereby notified that it is his duty to register as a Sex Offender as required by 46-18-254 and 46-23-501 through 508, Montana Codes Annotated. 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 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. . . . ■

On August 22, 1997, 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 Deputy County Attorney Joe Coble.

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 11th day of September, 1997.

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, there is a split decision of the Sentence Review Division. The Honorable Jeffrey Sherlock and the Honorable Richard Phillips choose to affirm the sentence.

Done in open Court this 22nd day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips.

The Honorable Jeff Langton dissents. Judge Langton would require the defendant to complete both Phases I & II of the sex offender Treatment Program at Montana State Prison before being eligible for parole.

Reasons for the dissent are because of the length of time that the molestation occurred and the age of the victim in this crime (Six years of age).

Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton.

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Robert J. Hurt for representing himself in this matter and also Deputy County Attorney Joe Coble for representing the State.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 20th Judicial District. County of Sanders.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Richard E. Jackin, Defendant.
    NO. DC 96-31 DECISION
   On February 25,1997, it was the judgment of the court that the defendant Richard Edward Jackin is hereby sentenced to a term of ten (10) years commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections for placement in an appropriate correctional institution or program, as specified in Section 46-18-201(l)(e) MCA. That, however, seven (7) years of defendant’s commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections is hereby suspended, on the terms and conditions of formal probation set forth in the February 25,1997judgment. It is further ordered pursuant to Section 46-18-221 MCA, that defendant is hereby sentenced to an additional sentence of ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, for use of a dangerous weapon in the commission of the offense. Eight years (8) of this additional sentence for use of a dangerous weapon is suspended on the same terms and conditions of probation set forth in this judgment. This additional sentence shall run consecutively to the sentence imposed for the offense of Felony Assault, a felony. The defendant shall receive credit for thirty-three (33) days time already served as of the date of this judgment.

On August 21, 1997, 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 attorney John Smith. 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 11th day of September, 1997.

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.)

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be amended so that the defendant is sentenced to the Department of Corrections instead of Montana State Prison for the ten (10) year weapon charge. All other aspects of the sentence shall remain affirmed.

The reason for the amendment is because it would make the sentence more consistent with the fact that the defendant is a first time felony offender.

Done in open Court this 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank attorney John Smith for representing Richard E. Jackin in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Bryon Karpyak, Defendant.
    NO. DC 97-01 DECISION
   On April 2,1997, it was the sentence and judgment of this court as follows: 1. The court finds the defendant guilty under Count 1 of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Fourth or subsequent offense, a felony, in violation of Section 61-8-401, MCA. 2. Under Count 1 for the offense of Driving Under the Influence, Fourth or Subsequent Offense, a Felony, the defendant is committed to the Department of Corrections for a period of eight (8) years. The sentences imposed under all counts shall be served concurrently. 3. Three years of this sentence shall be suspended upon conditions as stated in the April 2, 1997 judgment. 4. The court finds the defendant guilty under Count 2 of Driving While Privilege is Suspended or Revoked, a Misdemeanor, in violation of Section 61-5-212, MCA. 5. For the offense of Driving While Suspended or Revoked, the defendant shall serve a period of 94 days in the Gallatin County Detention Center and shall receive credit for time previously served. The defendant shall pay an administrative fee in the amount of $15. 6. The court finds the defendant guilty under Count 5 of Reckless Driving, a Misdemeanor, in violation of Section 61-8-301(l)(b), MCA. 7. For the offense of Reckless Driving the defendant shall serve a period of 94 days in the Gallatin County Detention Center and shall receive credit for time previously served. The defendant shall pay a fine in the amount of $300 and an administrative fee in the amount of $15. 8. The defendant shall work out a payment agreement with his supervising officer with the Department. If the defendant is in default on any financial obligation ordered by the court, and has failed to make a good faith effort to pay the money in full or make payments as agreed, the court may, after hearing, order the defendant to serve from one (1) to five (5) additional days in jail for each occurrence of default.

DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.

On August 21, 1997, 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 firids 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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon.- Richard Phillips ' and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton.

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Bryon Karpyak for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Gary L. Kelley, Defendant.
    NO. BDC 96-108 DECISION
   On February 23, 1997; it.was:ordered-, adjudged and.decreed, that for-thte offense of Attempted Burglary, a-Felony,-Mr.-Kelley is sentenced, to five (5) years with the Department of Corrections.. This is to run concurrently with the sentence imposedfiri Cause No. CDG 91-155. The defendant shall obtain a psychiatric evaluation-while at MSP, to determine specifically whether he continues to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia or any other mental disorder which requires medication. He must take.any medications that are prescribed: The Court also recommends that he obtain a neuropsychological evaluation to assist in deterinining the persistent effects of the brain injury he suffered as a youth and to determine how he can best address any deficits so that he can be successful on parole or probation and'as a citizen. The defendant shall also obtain-and complete a chemicaldeperidency evaluation-at MSP and follow; through with'any-and all recommendations thereof, including .treatment and after 'care if such, is recommended. The evaluation and treatment 'should be completed prior to-his release. The defendant shall also complete the-criminal thinking errors program while at MSP. If he is released into a community on'parole, conditions shall apply which are Stated-in the February 23, 1997 judgment. The-defendant is given credit for time served in the Cascade CountyDetention.Center.

On August 21, 1997, 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 riot 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 11th day of September, 1997.

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 with the recommendation that the defendant receive mental health counseling.

Done in open Court this 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Gary L. Kelley for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 21st Judicial District. County of Ravalli.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Clinton Koerner, Defendant.
    NO. DC 96-118 DECISION
    DATED this 1st day of October, 1997.
   On March 5,1997, it was the sentence and judgment of the court as follows: 1. That the defendant, Clinton Koerner, is guilty of the crime of Accountability for Robbery, a Felony in violation of Section 45-5-401(l)(b) M.C.A.; 2. The defendant is committed to the Department of Corrections for appropriate placement into a community-based program, facility, or state correctional institution for a period of eleven (11) years, with four (4) years of said sentence suspended-subject to conditions as stated in the March 5, 1997 judgment. The defendant shall receive credit for 108 days for jail time served prior to sentencing. The court hereby recommends the defendant be considered for placement at the Swan River Correctional Training Center, and will retain jurisdiction to reconsider his sentence if he successfully completes said program.

On August 21, 1997, 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.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the petition for review of sentence shall be dismissed.

Done in open Court this 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Bichard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Bobert Boyd


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Robert Martz, Defendant.
    NO. DC 95-160 DECISION
    DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.
   On April 9,1996, it was the sentence and judgment of this court as follows: 1. The court finds the defendant guilty of: Count 1: Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Fourth or Subsequent Offense, a Felony, in violation of Section 61-8-401, MCA. Count 2. Habitual Traffic Offender Operating a Motor Vehicle, a Misdemeanor, in violation of Section 61-11-213, MCA. Count 3: Failure to Show Proof of Required Liability Insurance, a Misdemeanor, in violation of Section 61-6-301(4), 2. For the offense of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Fourth or Subsequent Offense, a Felony, the defendant shall be committed to the Department of Corrections for a period of eight (8) years with recommendations which are stated in the April 9,1996 judgment. 3. For the offense of Habitual Traffic Offender Operating a Motor Vehicle, a Misdemeanor, in violation of Section 61-11-213, MCA, the defendant shall serve one (1) year in jail to be served concurrently with his commitment to the Department of Corrections on the condition that the defendant not drive for a period of five (5) years. 4. For the offense of Failure to Show Proof of Required Liability Insurance, a Misdemeanor, the defendant shall serve six (6) months in jail to be served concurrently with his commitment to the Department of Corrections. 5. The defendant shall receive credit for eighty-nine (89) days previously served at the Gallatin County Detention Center from November 9,1995, through November 17,1995, and from December 18,1995, through March 7, 1996, and shall receive credit at the Gallatin County Detention Center after March 7, 1996, until his transportation to the Department of Corrections by the Gallatin County Sheriff.

On August 21, 1997, 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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Robert D. Martz for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 21st Judicial District. County of Ravalli.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Kerry R. Miessner, Defendant.
    NO. CR 95-77 DECISION
    DATED this 1st day of October, 1997.
   On March 5,1997, it was the sentence and judgment of the court as follows: 1. That the defendant is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the sentence heretofore imposed upon him on the 22nd day of May, 1996 and the suspended sentence is hereby revoked. 2. The defendant is committed to the Department of Corrections for appropriate placement into a community-based program, facility, or state correctional institution for a period often (10) years on each of the four felony counts, and to six (6) months on the misdemeanor count, all to run concurrently, and with three (3) years of each felony count suspended subject to all existing conditions set forth in the original judgment imposed on May 22, 1996. The defendant shall receive an additional credit of 37 days for time served in jail prior to this sentencing. The Court recommends that the defendant be considered for placement in a pre-release center, and that the Department make available all appropriate alcohol treatment and counseling while in their care.

On August 21, 1997, 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.

The defendant’s complaints about lawyers and the way the Department of Corrections has classified him and his eligibility for alcohol treatment are not issues which can be addressed before the Sentence Review Board.

Done in open Court this 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Robert Boyd

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Kerry R. Miessner for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 1st Judicial District. County of Lewis & Clark.
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Randall M. Munger, Defendant.
    NO. ADC 96-197 DECISION
    DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.
   On January 22, 1997, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that for the offense of Count I - Driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, a felony, the defendant is sentenced to the Montana Department of Corrections for a period of ten (10) years, with five (5) years suspended, upon the conditions hereinafter set forth. The Department may place the defendant into an appropriate community based-program,'facility,-or a State correctional institution, with the Court’s recommendation that the defendant be placed in a pre-release center. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that for the offehse of Count II - Driving after having been adjudged an habitual traffic offender, a misdemeanor, the defendant is sentenced to the Lewis & Clark County Jail for a period of six (6) months, with all of that time suspended upon conditions set forth in the January 22, 1997 judgment. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that for the offense of Count III - Driving without valid liability insurance in-effect (4th offense), a misdemeanor, the defendant is sentenced to the Lewis & Clark County Jail for a period of six (6) months, with all of that time suspended upon conditions set forth-in the January 22, 1997 judgment. The foregoing sentences shall run concurrently with each other and have conditions which are stated in the January 22, 1997 judgment. The defendant is granted twenty. (20) days’credit for time served. ■

On August 21, 1997, 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 notonly 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/1.(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 21st day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to- thank Randall M. Munger for representing himself in this matter.


text:
    FROM: The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

      STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Wayne Partin, Defendant.
    NO. DC 94-526 DECISION
    DATED this 11th day of September, 1997.
   On January 8, 1996, it was therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said Wayne Partin be committed to the Department of Corrections for the offense of Count I: Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Felony) 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 for the term of fifty-two (52) months to run consecutively with the sentence received in criminal cause number DC 94-376. The defendant is further notified that the law imposes upon him the duty to pay a supervisory fee of One Hundred Tweniy-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 Cl.erk 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. On January 8,1996, it was therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said Wayne Partin be committed to the Department of Corrections for the offense of Count II: Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Misdemeanor) and Count III: Criminal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Misdemeanor) 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 for the term of three (3) months on each count to run concurrently with each other and to run concurrently with count I of this criminal cause. 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, 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 Dollars ($20.00) to the Treasurer of this County. ... .. ,

On. August 22, .1997, 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 22nd day of August, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Richard Phillips and Alternate Member, Hon. Jeff Langton

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Wayne Alan Partin for representing himself in this matter.