Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

281 Mont. 120

State v. Litchfield

Montana Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1996

Montana Supreme Court · decided 1996-12-02

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2023

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-12-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1On June 13, 1996, it was the judgment of the court that the defendant, on Count I, Theft, be and is hereby sentenced to the Montana State Prison, in Deer Lodge, Montana, for a period of four (4) years with none of those years to be suspended. On Count II, Criminal Endangerment, the defendant be and is hereby sentenced to the Montana State Prison, in Deer Lodge, Montana, for a period of six (6) years with none of those years to be suspended. The above two sentences shall run consecutively with each other. Upon release from the Montana State Prison, terms and conditions of parole shall apply as stated in the June 13, 1996 judgment. The defendant shall be given credit for time served as of today, which constitutes one hundred and one (101) days.

¶2On November 14,1996, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

¶3The Defendant was present and proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.

¶4Before 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.

¶5Rule 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.

¶6After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

¶7Done in open Court this 14th day of November, 1996.

Chairman, Hon. Ted O. LympusMember, Hon. Jeffrey M. SherlockMember, Hon. William Neis Swandal

¶8The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Tbdd L. Litchfield for representing himself in this matter.

/281/mont/120 · .json · Public domain