State v. Bell

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Bell

256 Mont. 29

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 23, 1992

DocketNO. Dc-84-173

StatusPublished

This text of 256 Mont. 29 (State v. Bell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bell, 256 Mont. 29 (Mo. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

On May 24,1985, the Defendant was sentenced to Count I, one hundred (100) years for Deliberate Homicide, plus ten (10) years for the use of a weapon to be served consecutively; Count II, one hundred (100) years for Deliberate Homicide, plus ten (10) years for the use of a weapon to be served consecutively; Counts I and II shall be served consecutive to each other. Dangerous Designation.

On July 23,1992, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded pro se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division is here to consider the sentence which was imposed by Judge Holmstrom. This board has the authority to increase the sentence, to leave it as is, or to reduce it. In the event that the Board would decide the alternative to increase the sentence, the proceedings will be stayed, an attorney would be appointed, and the proceedings would be rescheduled for a later date. In the event that the Board [30]*30determines the sentence will remain as is or reduce it, the Board will go ahead with that decision. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

DATED this 23rd day of July, 1992.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed. The reason for the decision is the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct pursuant to Section 46-18-904(3), MCA. The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to deem inadequate or excessive as required to overcome the presumption per Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

Hon. Ed McLean, Chairman, Hon. Thomas M. McKittrick, Hon. G. Todd Baugh, Judges.

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Roger Bell for his assistance to this Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On May 24,1985, the Defendant was sentenced to Count I, one hundred (100) years for Deliberate Homicide, plus ten (10) years for the use of a weapon to be served consecutively; Count II, one hundred (100) years for Deliberate Homicide, plus ten (10) years for the use of a weapon to be served consecutively; Counts I and II shall be served consecutive to each other. Dangerous Designation.

On July 23,1992, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and proceeded pro se. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division is here to consider the sentence which was imposed by Judge Holmstrom. This board has the authority to increase the sentence, to leave it as is, or to reduce it. In the event that the Board would decide the alternative to increase the sentence, the proceedings will be stayed, an attorney would be appointed, and the proceedings would be rescheduled for a later date. In the event that the Board [30]*30determines the sentence will remain as is or reduce it, the Board will go ahead with that decision. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

DATED this 23rd day of July, 1992.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed. The reason for the decision is the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct pursuant to Section 46-18-904(3), MCA. The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to deem inadequate or excessive as required to overcome the presumption per Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

Hon. Ed McLean, Chairman, Hon. Thomas M. McKittrick, Hon. G. Todd Baugh, Judges.

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Roger Bell for his assistance to this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 Mont. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bell-mont-1992.