State v. Fuchs

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Fuchs

153 Mont. 30

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 20, 1969

DocketNO. 7458

StatusPublished

This text of 153 Mont. 30 (State v. Fuchs) 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. Fuchs, 153 Mont. 30 (Mo. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

The application of the above-named défendant- for a review of the sentence of five years for Second Degree Assault (assaulting wife with a revolver) imposed on January 19, 1969, was fully heard and after a careful consideration of the entire matter it is decided that:

The sentence be and remain as originally imposed.

The presumption being that the sentencing judge was correct in his determination, we are unable to say that this sentence was not proper, reasonable, and sufficiently lenient, the nature of the crime, the individual, and the sentencing goals kept in mind, particularly when it is considered that the crime may be punished by 6 years imprisonment or a fine or §2,000, or both, and that the defendant has two prior felony convictions, which, if used against him could have resulted in imprisonment for life or years without limit. That the crime may have been the result of a family quarrel does not excuse the defendant;

We thank Wade J. Dahood, Esq., for his assistance to the Court and to the defendant.

SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION

Philip C. Duncan, chairman; Paul G. Hatfield, Jack D. Shanstrom.

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

DECISION

The application of the above-named défendant- for a review of the sentence of five years for Second Degree Assault (assaulting wife with a revolver) imposed on January 19, 1969, was fully heard and after a careful consideration of the entire matter it is decided that:

The sentence be and remain as originally imposed.

The presumption being that the sentencing judge was correct in his determination, we are unable to say that this sentence was not proper, reasonable, and sufficiently lenient, the nature of the crime, the individual, and the sentencing goals kept in mind, particularly when it is considered that the crime may be punished by 6 years imprisonment or a fine or §2,000, or both, and that the defendant has two prior felony convictions, which, if used against him could have resulted in imprisonment for life or years without limit. That the crime may have been the result of a family quarrel does not excuse the defendant;

We thank Wade J. Dahood, Esq., for his assistance to the Court and to the defendant.

SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION

Philip C. Duncan, chairman; Paul G. Hatfield, Jack D. Shanstrom.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 Mont. 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fuchs-mont-1969.