06/08/2021
DA 20-0033
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2021 MT 145N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN LEE LONGTINE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause Nos. DC-09-461(A),
DC-12-304(A), DC-14-376(A), and DC-19-036(A)
Honorable Amy Eddy, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Moses Okeyo, Assistant Appellate
Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Travis R. Ahner, Flathead County Attorney, Amy Kennison, Deputy
County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 12, 2021
Decided: June 8, 2021
Filed:
sr---6ma•—•f
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Justin Lee Longtine appeals an order from the Eleventh Judicial District Court,
Flathead County, denying him street time credit when his probationary sentences for
driving under the influence (DUI), criminal endangerment, and theft were revoked.
We affirm.
¶3 In April 2012, Longtine pled guilty to theft and bail jumping in DC-09-461(A) and
DC-11-294(C), respectively. The District Court deferred imposition for two years and
imposed a concurrent term of six months in jail, all suspended. In July 2012, Longtine
was charged with felony assault with a weapon and felony partner/family member assault
in DC-12-304(A). The State filed a report of violation and a petition to revoke his
deferred sentences in DC-09-461(A) and DC-11-294(C). Longtine’s bond was revoked
because he continued to use alcohol and he was arrested on an outstanding warrant. The
report of violation indicated Longtine violated the conditions of his probation by
consuming alcohol and entering bars, possessing a firearm, and failing to remain law
abiding. In January 2013, Longtine pled guilty in DC-12-304(A) to an amended charge
of felony criminal endangerment.
2
¶4 In April 2013, the District Court sentenced Longtine for his convictions in
DC-09-461(A), DC-11-294(C), and DC-12-304(A). Longtine was sentenced as
follows: 10 years to the Department of Corrections (DOC) with 5 years suspended in
DC-09-461(A); a concurrent period of 6 months in DC-11-294(C); 20 years to the DOC,
all suspended, in DC-12-304(A), and consecutive to his sentence in DC-09-461(A).
Longtine entered Connections Corrections in October 2013. Two months later he
transitioned to the Billings Pre-release Center. Longtine was granted a conditional
release in June 2014.
¶5 Longtine’s conditional release was revoked after he was arrested for felony DUI,
DC-14-376(D), in October 2014. For this new offense, Longtine was sentenced to
13 months to the DOC, followed by 5 years of probation. The sentence was imposed
consecutive to his sentences in DC-09-461(A), DC-11-294(C), and DC-12-304(A).
Longtine was granted conditional release in November 2015.
¶6 In late 2016, Longtine violated his conditional release by not maintaining
employment and driving without approval. He was placed in the Intensive Supervision
Program (ISP) in January and remained in ISP until June of 2017. In April 2018,
Longtine was unemployed and tested positive for cocaine. Following the test, he
absconded from supervision. Longtine’s concurrent sentences in DC-09-461(A) and
DC-11-294(C) began to run in August 2018. However, he was classified as
“non-compliant” because he had not reported since April 2018. Longtine’s probation
officer filed an affidavit and addendum regarding his absconder status and recommended
he not receive credit for street time. The State filed petitions to revoke and the
3
District Court issued bench warrants for his arrest. Longtine was arrested for his second
DUI offense in January 2019, in DC-19-036(A). A revocation hearing was scheduled for
February 2019.
¶7 Longtine pled not guilty to his January 2019 DUI offense and denied the alleged
probation violations in DC-09-461(A), DC-12-304(A), and DC-14-376(D). The
revocation hearing was continued twice so Longtine could complete a
chemical dependency evaluation. On June 27, 2019, Longtine appeared by telephone for
a change of plea hearing. Longtine pled guilty to the DUI charge in DC-19-036(A) and
admitted to violating his probationary sentences. Longtine also asserted he told his
probation officer about his employment change and change in residence, but did not hear
back through email, which was his primary form of communication with his probation
officer. The District Court revoked his probationary sentences and set a combined
sentencing and dispositional hearing for November 14, 2019.
¶8 The District Court evaluated the probation officer’s affidavit and addendum, and a
presentence investigation report (PSI) pertaining to DC-19-036(A). The PSI indicated
Longtine “report[ed] some sobriety with SCRAM since his release,” but failed to
complete the chemical dependency evaluation. Longtine declined to speak at the
dispositional hearing. Regarding DC-19-036(A)—the January 2019 DUI charge—the
District Court sentenced Longtine to the DOC for 13 months followed by 5 years on
probation, with 3 days credit. The sentence would run consecutively to the following
sentences: DC-09-461(A)—the theft charge—5 years to the DOC, suspended, with
128 days served; DC-12-304(A)—the amended charge of criminal endangerment—
4
10 years to the DOC, suspended, with 128 days served; DC-14-376(D)—the October
2014 DUI charge—5 years to the DOC, suspended, with 133 days served. The net
sentence imposed on Longtine was a 13-month commitment to the DOC followed by a
20-year commitment to the DOC, all suspended. The District Court did not grant any
“good street time credit” to Longtine due to continued violations of his probationary
conditions. In December 2019, Longtine filed a motion to conform the oral and written
judgments to reflect the correct amount of actual street time credit. The District Court
denied the motion concluding the amended judgment and sentence conformed with the
oral pronouncement.
¶9 On appeal, Longtine asserts the District Court did not have authority to deny him
street time credit without an evidentiary hearing.
¶10 “This Court reviews a district court’s decision to revoke a suspended sentence to
determine whether the court abused its discretion.” State v. Jardee, 2020 MT 81, ¶ 5,
399 Mont. 459,
461 P.3d 108. “Additionally, revocation decisions involve both legal and
factual findings[,] and we review a district court’s legal findings de novo and its factual
findings for clear error.” Jardee, ¶ 5. “A district court’s factual findings are clearly
erroneous if they are not supported by substantial credible evidence, if the court
misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if a review of the record leaves this Court
with the definite firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Jardee, ¶ 5 (citing
State v. Johnson,
2018 MT 277, ¶ 10,
393 Mont. 320,
430 P.3d 494).
¶11 Although Longtine failed to object to the District Court’s denial of street time
credit, we will nonetheless address the issue on appeal. Longtine argues he was entitled
5
to 154 days of street time credit in DC-09-461(A) for the time between August 2018 and
January 2019. Section 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA, provides:
If a suspended or deferred sentence is revoked, the judge shall consider any
elapsed time, consult the records and recollection of the probation and
parole officer, and allow all of the elapsed time served without any record
or recollection of violations as a credit against the sentence. If the judge
determines that elapsed time should not be credited, the judge shall state the
reasons for the determination in the order. Credit must be allowed for time
served in a detention center or for home arrest time already served.
This Court has held the statute now requires a specific demonstration of a “record or
recollection of violations” in the period in question to defeat the credit. Jardee, ¶ 11.
Thus, a district court must “state the reasons” for a denial of credit based upon the record
or recollection of the probation officer before street time credit may be denied for the
relevant time period. Jardee, ¶ 11. Longtine asserts, based on Jardee, the District Court
did not provide reasons for a denial of credit during the time he was on probation.
However, the District Court utilized the probation officer’s affidavit and addendum to the
report of violation, in addition to the PSI in its determination that Longtine had not
adhered to the conditions of probation. Accordingly, the District Court was informed that
Longtine failed to report a change in address and employment, possessed a firearm,
consumed alcohol and entered bars, and failed to abide by laws. The District Court
indicated it had “consulted” these sources of information in determining that Longtine
was not entitled to credit for street time. We conclude the District Court did not err in
denying Longtine credit for street time.
¶12 Longtine additionally argues the District Court could not consider the affidavit or
addendum to the report of violation as proof of whether he had adhered to probation
6
conditions in its decision to deny street time credit. Both the report of violation and the
PSI confirmed Longtine’s absconder status when he was arrested in January 2019 for his
second DUI offense. The report of violation included statements from Longtine’s
probation officer recommending he not receive street time credit. Additionally, the PSI
detailed that Longtine failed to report for his chemical dependency evaluation. At the
revocation hearing, Longtine confirmed he had not reported to his probation officer in
April 2018 due to an inability to reach her by email. Longtine also confirmed he had not
informed his probation officer of the change of address and employment by writing—a
requirement of his probation conditions. We conclude the District Court was permitted to
consider this information when it denied street time credit between the time Longtine
began serving his probation, August 2018, and when he was arrested for his second DUI
offense, January 2019.
¶13 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion
of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear
application of applicable standards of review.
¶14 Affirmed.
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
7
