Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

281 Mont. 129

State v. Valentine

Montana Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1996

Montana Supreme Court · decided 1996-12-02

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 2008

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 July 8, 1996, the Court found the defendant in violation of the conditions of his suspended sentence and it is the judgment of the Court that defendant’s prior suspended sentence is hereby revoked and that the defendant be and he is hereby sentenced to a term of seventeen (17) years in the Montana State Prison. It is the recommendation of the Court that the defendant shall complete both phases of the sexual offender treatment program at the Montana State Prison prior to becoming eligible for parole. The defendant shall receive credit from May 13, 1996, through date of sentencing, July 8, 1996, for fifty-seven (57) days jail time which he has previously served.

¶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 *130of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

DATED this 2nd day of December, 1996.

¶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 Joseph A. Valentine for representing himself in this matter.

/281/mont/129 · .json · Public domain