Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

286 Mont. 21

State v. Surges

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1997

Montana Supreme Court · decided 1997-03-04

Decided 1997-03-04

¶1On December 31, 1996, it was ordered that the ten (10) year suspended portion of the sentence imposed by this Court upon the defendant on March 15, 1989 be and the same is hereby revoked and Peter J. Surges, Jr., committed to the Montana State Prison at Deer Lodge, Montana to serve the remaining portion of said ten (10) year term. As previously specified by this Court’s Order of March, 1989, the portion of the defendant’s sentence hereby revoked and imposed shall run consecutive to the remainder, if any, of the original ten (10) year prison sentence not suspended. The Defendant is given credit for all time served in custody and designated as a non-violent offender. The Court hereby recommends and directs that prior to placement at the Montana State Prison, the Defendant be screened for Pre-Release with the intention that he be placed at an appropriate Pre-Release facility if he is deemed suitable and be transferred to the Montana State Prison in the event he is not suitable for Pre-Release.

¶2On February 20, 1997, 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 20th day of February, 1997.

¶8Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Wm. Neis Swandal and Member, Hon. Richard G. Phillips.

¶9The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Peter J. Surges, Jr. for representing himself in this matter.

/286/mont/21 · .json · Public domain