Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

335 Mont. 39

State v. Knodel

Montana Supreme Court

Decided April 14, 2006

Montana Supreme Court · decided 2006-04-14

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-04-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2024

8 state decisions

30200620102020decided

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 December 6, 2005, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment of five (5) years to the Department of Corrections, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Valium), a felony.

¶2On April 7, 2006, 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 was represented by Brandon Hartford. The state was represented by Rod Souza.

¶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 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 of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “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.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

¶6The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

¶7Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

¶8Done in open Court this 7th day of April, 2006.

Chairperson, Hon. John Whelan, Member, Hon. Randal I. Spaulding and Member, Hon. Katherine Irigoin.
/335/mont/39 · .json · Public domain