¶1On May 1, 2007, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: Forty (40) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Aggravated Burglary, a felony; Count II: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Aggravated Kidnapping, a felony; and Count III: One hundred (100) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a felony.
¶2On November 1,2007, 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 Eric Olson. The state was represented by Kirsten LaCroix, who appeared via videoconference.
¶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 he understood this and stated that he 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. However, the Sentence Review Division notes that counsel’s argument is essentially one of ineffective assistance of counsel, which is not properly raised before the Sentence Review Division, but either with the trial court for post conviction proceedings or appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
¶7Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.