State v. Buckingham
This text of 269 Mont. 16 (State v. Buckingham) 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.
Opinion
On September 3, 1993, the Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five (25) years at Montana State Prison for COUNT I, Aggravated Burglary, a Felony; Ten (10) years at Montana State Prison for COUNT II, Assault, a Felony. For the use of a dangerous weapon during the commission of these offenses, a sentence of ten (10) years was imposed. All of said sentences shall run consecutively with each other. Defendant shall be designated a dangerous offender. If paroled, as a condition to that parole, the Court imposes on defendant, the costs of any medical, psychological, or other mental health treatment of the victim caused by this incident. Credit is given for 167 days time served.
On March 25, 1994, 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 was represented by Dirk Beccari, Attorney from the Public Defender’s Office in Missoula, Montana. The state was not represented.
Before 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 if such is possible. 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.
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. The sentencing judge did take into account the mitigating circumstances when he provided that the defendant be placed with the Department of Corrections rather than ordered directly to the Montana State Prison in order that they have the discretion as to the defendant’s placement for his twenty (20) year sentence.
The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Dirk Beccari, Attorney at Law, for his assistance to the defendant and to this Court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
269 Mont. 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-buckingham-mont-1994.