State v. Chauvin

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Chauvin

210 Mont. 1

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 6, 1984

DocketNo. DC-83-85A

StatusPublished

This text of 210 Mont. 1 (State v. Chauvin) 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. Chauvin, 210 Mont. 1 (Mo. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

The application of the above-named defendant for a review of the sentence of 3 years imposed on September 26, 1983, was fully heard and after a careful consideration of the entire matter it is decided that: the sentence shall be amended to 3 years with 2 years suspended, and the Defendant is to make restitution of $1,000 within 6 months, and the balance within one year of release. The Defendant shall be under the Supervision of the Department of Adult Probation and Parole for the suspended portion of this sentence.

Reason for the amendment are:

[2]*2DATED this 6th day of January, 1984.

(1) This is the Defendant’s first offense; and

(2) By reducing the sentence, it will enable the Defendant to make restitution sooner.

We wish to thank Stephen Pohl, Attorney from Bozeman, for his assistance to this court.

SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION Joseph B. Gary, Chairman; Mark Sullivan, John Henson.

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

DECISION

The application of the above-named defendant for a review of the sentence of 3 years imposed on September 26, 1983, was fully heard and after a careful consideration of the entire matter it is decided that: the sentence shall be amended to 3 years with 2 years suspended, and the Defendant is to make restitution of $1,000 within 6 months, and the balance within one year of release. The Defendant shall be under the Supervision of the Department of Adult Probation and Parole for the suspended portion of this sentence.

Reason for the amendment are:

[2]*2DATED this 6th day of January, 1984.

(1) This is the Defendant’s first offense; and

(2) By reducing the sentence, it will enable the Defendant to make restitution sooner.

We wish to thank Stephen Pohl, Attorney from Bozeman, for his assistance to this court.

SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION Joseph B. Gary, Chairman; Mark Sullivan, John Henson.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 Mont. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chauvin-mont-1984.