Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

292 Mont. 97

State v. Ness

Montana Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 1998

Montana Supreme Court · decided 1998-10-29

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-10-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2024

1 district · 15 state decisions

801998200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1On May 6, 1998, the Defendant was sentenced to the Montana Women’s Prison for five (5) years on Count I; five (5) years to the Montana Women’s Prison, with all five years suspended, on Count II; and five (5) years to the Montana Women’s Prison, with all five years suspended, on Count III. The sentence imposed in Count III shall run consecutive to the sentence imposed on Count II. The sentences imposed on Counts II and III shall run consecutive to the sentence imposed on Count I, for a total sentence of fifteen (15) years, with ten (10) years suspended.

¶2On September 18,1998, 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 informed of her right to be represented by counsel. Defendant 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 she understood this and stated that she 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.

Chairman, Hon. Robert Boyd, Alt. Member, Hon. John C. McKeon and Alt. Member, Hon. Robert Holmstrom.

¶7The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Janice M. Ness for representing herself in this matter.

/292/mont/97 · .json · Public domain