08/25/2026
DA 23-0437
Case Number: DA 23-0437
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2026 MT 201
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL C. MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and For the County of Jefferson, Cause No. DC-2020-16 Honorable Luke Berger, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Tammy A. Hinderman, Appellate Defender Division Administrator, Justin T. Redeen, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Steven Haddon, Jefferson County Attorney, Andrew W. Paul, Deputy County Attorney, Boulder, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: March 11, 2026 Decided: August 25, 2026
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Cory J. Swanson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Michael Mitchell appeals the revocation of his suspended sentence for Sexual Intercourse Without Consent. Following a plea agreement, the Fifth Judicial District Court for Jefferson County sentenced Mitchell to 20 years to the Department of Corrections (DOC) with 15 years suspended. The 5-year DOC sentence was ordered to be served under community supervision. After a subsequent new charge of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, the suspension of the sentence was revoked. Mitchell now appeals the District Court’s award of credit for time served to this Court. We affirm.
¶2 We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in its calculation of Mitchell’s credit for time served.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶3 On September 4, 2019, the State filed an information charging Mitchell with two counts of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (SIWOC) and three counts of Sexual Assault for conduct involving two underaged victims. The first victim reported to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office that Mitchell had been abusing her since she was 6 years old until she was 13, forcing her to perform oral sex on him. The second victim, who was 15, reported she was intoxicated at a party at Michell’s residence and lost consciousness. She awoke to Mitchell having sex with her without her consent.
¶4 The District Court held a detention hearing on September 5 and granted Mitchell bail. The bond was posted on the same day, and Mitchell was released from custody. On April 6, 2020, the District Court severed the count related to the second victim from the
3
four counts related to the first victim. Soon after, the parties reached a global plea agreement for both cases. In exchange for Mitchell’s guilty plea to the severed count involving the second victim, the State agreed to dismiss the charges related to the first victim. The parties agreed to jointly recommend a 20-year DOC commitment with 15 years suspended. The State further agreed to consider Mitchell’s psychosexual evaluation and, if appropriate, recommend Mitchell be placed in the community for the 5-year active part of this sentence. The parties accomplished that at a December 2, 2020 change of plea hearing. Mitchell was released pending sentencing.
¶5 The court held a sentencing hearing on March 31, 2021. Instead of incarceration, the State recommended the court place Mitchell under community supervision for the 5-year unsuspended term. The court followed the State’s recommendation and committed Mitchell to DOC for a period of 20 years with 15 years suspended and, pursuant to § 46-18-201(3)(a)(vi), MCA, ordered Mitchell to be released immediately to community supervision.
¶6 On July 8, 2021, Mitchell was arrested and charged with two counts of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent after he engaged in sexual intercourse with an underage child. Mitchell argued he was unaware of the victim’s age and believed her to be over 18. That same day, Mitchell’s parole officer, Lloyd Dopp, filed a report of violation. The State filed a petition to revoke the sentence on July 15, and on July 16, a bench warrant was issued for Mitchell. On August 5, 2021, the Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Office served the warrant on Mitchell at the Lewis and Clark County Detention Center, where he was being
4
held on his new charges. On September 2, 2021, Mitchell posted a property bond, and on September 8, 2021, he was released from detention.
¶7 Mitchell’s revocation hearing was continued four times. In May 2022, Mitchell’s attorney withdrew from the case after his client “failed to honor the requirements of the attorney-client agreement.” Subsequently, Mitchell failed to appear for his next hearing on June 29, 2022. On July 1, 2022, the court issued a $50,000 bench warrant. On July 6 the Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Office arrested Mitchell on the warrant. On August 18, 2022, the court approved a property bond for Mitchell.
¶8 On January 4, 2023, while Mitchell’s new charges for SIWOC were still pending, the court conducted Mitchell’s revocation hearing. The District Court found Mitchell had violated the terms of his “probationary sentence” by failing to remain law abiding and failing to comply with sex offender treatment. The court ordered a PSI to be submitted prior to the sentencing hearing. The PSI stated Mitchell had been incarcerated for a total of 112 days. The PSI calculated 62 days between July 8, 2021 (date Mitchell was arrested on a new crime), and September 8, 2021 (date Mitchell was released on bond for both this offense and his new offense), and 50 days between June 29, 2022 (date of the hearing missed by Mitchell), and August 18, 2022 (date Mitchell was released on the new warrant).
¶9 On July 12, 2023, the court held a dispositional hearing on the petition to revoke the sentence. Mitchell reported he had pled guilty to the Lewis and Clark County charge, but the First Judicial District Court had not yet sentenced him on this charge. The court reminded the parties the sentence at issue was the 15-year-suspended sentence and Mitchell was still serving his 5-year community supervision sentence. The State recommended the
5
court sentence Mitchell to DOC for a period of 15 years with 5 years suspended and stated he had earned 34 days of credit for time served. Mitchell asked for a straight suspended sentence.
¶10 The court disagreed with both recommendations. The District Court stated Mitchell had committed two prior SIWOC offenses, and the revocation was due to a third SIWOC offense. Due to risk of repeated offenses, the court concluded a suspended sentence would not be appropriate. The court sentenced Mitchell to 15 years to DOC with no time suspended. The court gave Mitchell credit for 34 days, explaining the “other credit is attributed to the five years that were not suspended before.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶11 “Revocation decisions involve both legal and factual findings, and we review a district court’s legal findings de novo and its factual findings for clear error. State v. Jardee, 2020 MT 81, ¶ 5, 399 Mont. 459, 461 P.3d 108 (internal citations omitted; internal quotations omitted). “[T]he interpretation and construction of a statute is a matter of law and we review whether the district court interpreted and applied a statute correctly de novo.” Jardee, ¶ 5.
DISCUSSION
¶12 Issue: Whether the District Court erred in its calculation of Mitchell’s credit for time served.
¶13 On appeal, Mitchell argues he was entitled to 112 days credit, and not the 34 days awarded by the District Court. The State argues all of Mitchell’s claimed credit for time served or elapsed time applies to Michell’s community supervision.
6
¶14 Section 46-18-201(3)(a)(vii), MCA, gives the District Court the ability to combine different sentencing forms. Section 46-18-201(3)(a)(iv)(A), MCA, authorizes the court to sentence a defendant to DOC with placement in an appropriate correctional facility or program, with all but the first 5 years suspended. Additionally, § 46-18-201(3)(a)(vi), MCA, allows the court to commit a defendant to DOC with the requirement the defendant be immediately released to community supervision. In this case, the court combined both sections to sentence Mitchell to 5 years to DOC (followed by a 15-year suspended sentence) and then released Mitchell to serve the 5 years under community supervision.
¶15 Mitchell was still serving his initial 5-year DOC sentence under community supervision when he committed a new SIWOC offense. At this time, the State initiated proceedings to revoke Mitchell’s suspended sentence. Therefore, any credit earned for time served applies to the 5-year community supervision sentence because that was the sentence Mitchell was serving at the time. Consequently, it is necessary for the court to be explicit regarding the amount of credit to which the defendant is entitled, and to which portion of the sentence it applies.
¶16 During the hearing, the court revoked the 15-year suspended sentence and sentenced Mitchell to 15 years to DOC, with no time suspended.
Mr. Mitchell, on the petition to revoke, based on the totality of the circumstances, I’m sentencing you to Montana Department of Corrections for 15 years. None of that is suspended. You’ll have to register as a Level II sex offender in accordance with the recommendation of the updated evaluation. You’ll get 34 days credit for time served. All other credit is attributed to the five years that were not suspended before.
7
¶17 The parties dispute whether Mitchell received appropriate credit toward his sentence. Mitchell argues he is entitled to an additional 112 days of credit for time served during the pendency of the revocation proceeding. He argues this is based upon the PSI’s calculation of days Mitchell was in custody, in addition to the 34 days of credit for time served the District Court granted him. Mitchell claims the District Court erred in applying the 112 days to the initial 5-year sentence that was not revoked.
¶18 The State disagrees with both claims. Although at the revocation disposition hearing the Deputy County Attorney recommended Mitchell receive 34 days of credit for time spent in custody toward his 15-year sentence, the State on appeal argues that is in error. The State further disputes the request for an additional 112 days of credit for this sentence, arguing the District Court correctly ruled those days are already applied to Mitchell’s 5-year sentence that he was serving during the revocation proceedings.1
¶19 The State is correct as a matter of law, all of Mitchell’s time spent in custody during the revocation proceeding should apply to the sentence he was serving at the time. Even though Mitchell was residing in the community, he was still serving a DOC commitment sentence. He therefore receives credit for every day, whether he is in custody or out, whether he is compliant with probation or not. This differs from § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA, when a court grants elapsed time credit if “a suspended or deferred sentence is revoked,” (emphasis added) for time without a record of violations.
1 In its brief, the State offers, “by not revoking or including the 5-year term in its disposition order, and instead imposing only the 15-year term, the district court effectively accelerated Mitchell’s discharge date by 984 days.” This issue was not squarely presented on this appeal, and we do not decide whether this theory is correct.
8
¶20 At the State’s insistence, the court granted Mitchell 34 days credit for time spent in jail and applied that credit to his 15-year DOC sentence. The State now argues that was a mistake, which it was. But it was a mistake the State caused at the sentencing hearing. The Deputy County Attorney stated, “Judge we have 34 days credit for time served according to our calculations from the jail.” The State recommended 34 days credit to the District Court and did not appeal the judgment, essentially waiving its argument on appeal. “Judicial estoppel binds the State to its judicial admissions and prevents the State from taking a position inconsistent with previously made declarations in a subsequent action or proceeding.” State v. Cameron, 2021 MT 198, ¶ 17, 405 Mont. 160, 494 P.3d 314 (internal citations omitted; internal quotations omitted). We will not disturb the court’s granting of 34 days credit to Mitchell, even if erroneous.
CONCLUSION
¶21 The District Court’s judgment awarding Mitchell 34 days of credit for time served on his revocation sentence is affirmed because the State waived its contrary argument. Mitchell automatically received credit for the disputed 112 days served in custody as part of his initial 5-year DOC sentence. The community placement order does not deprive Mitchell of credit for time served or credit for every day he discharged the sentence on community probation. The District Court correctly declined to award additional time toward his revocation sentence.
¶22 Affirmed.
/S/ CORY J. SWANSON
9
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ JIM RICE
Justice Ingrid Gustafson, dissenting.
¶23 I dissent. This case involves a revocation of a suspended sentence governed by § 46-18-203(7), MCA (2021). The Opinion needlessly focuses on the initial 5-year DOC commitment which is not at issue in this appeal, ignores the plain language of § 46-18-203(7), MCA, and contains factual errors with regard to Mitchell’s conviction.
¶24 It is undisputed Mitchell was in a community placement serving his initial 5-year DOC commitment when the petition for revocation was filed and he was arrested and jailed for 54 days—from July 16, 2021, to September 8, 2021—on the first revocation warrant and again arrested and detained—from July 6, 2022, to August 18, 2022—on the second revocation warrant. The plain language of § 46-18-203(7), MCA (2021) (“Credit must be allowed for time served in a detention center [] for [] time already served.”) requires that Mitchell be given credit for the time served when jailed on the revocation warrants toward any revocation disposition—regardless of whether he was also serving the custodial portion of his sentence when he was arrested and jailed on the revocation warrants. While arguably the disposition resulting from the revocation would not begin to run until Mitchell’s 5-year DOC commitment expired—as the suspended portion of his sentence was, in essence, imposed consecutive to the commitment portion of his sentence—he is still entitled to credit for the time served in detention associated with arrest and detention on the revocation
10
warrants. Nothing in the applicable version of § 46-18-203(7), MCA, excludes detention credit even though the revocation occurred during the period of his initial 5-year DOC commitment. Accordingly, I would issue the following opinion:
¶25 Michael Mitchell appeals the District Court’s award of credit for detention time served on the revocation of the suspended portion of his sentence for Sexual Intercourse Without Consent. We remand to amend the disposition of July 12, 2023, to provide Mitchell with 63 additional days of credit served related to the revocation proceeding.
¶26 We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in its calculation of Mitchell’s credit for time served in relation to his revocation disposition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶27 On September 4, 2019, the State filed an Information in Cause No. DC-2019-38 charging Mitchell with five offenses involving two juveniles. The Information charged two felony counts of sexual intercourse without consent (SIWOC), in violation of § 45-5-503, MCA, and three counts of sexual assault, in violation of § 45-5-502, MCA. Of the three sexual assault counts, two were misdemeanors and one was a felony. Original Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 involved one juvenile and alleged conduct occurring between 2011 and 2017. Original Count 2 alleged SIWOC involving a second juvenile in August 2018. Upon Mitchell’s motion, the District Court severed Count 2 from the other offenses.
¶28 The parties entered a December 2, 2020 global plea agreement. The agreement provided that Mitchell would plead guilty in DC-2020-16 to “Count I” of SIWOC committed in August 2018. Although the agreement called the charge Count I after
11
severance, the date and description identify it as the original Count 2. The State agreed in return to dismiss the remaining charges—counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 contained in the original Information.
¶29 The District Court accepted Mitchell’s guilty plea to the August 2018 SIWOC charge. The March 31, 2021 Findings, Judgment and Sentence in DC-2020-16 recorded that dismissal pursuant to the plea agreement and adjudged Mitchell guilty of one count of SIWOC. The Jefferson County proceedings therefore resulted in one SIWOC conviction.
¶30 On March 31, 2021, the District Court committed Mitchell to twenty years DOC with fifteen years suspended. The judgment provided: “Pursuant to § 46-18-201(3)(a)(vi), the Defendant is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections but released to community supervision.” The judgment thus contained an active five-year DOC component, which Mitchell would serve under community supervision, followed by a fifteen-year suspended component.
¶31 On July 8, 2021, authorities arrested Mitchell and charged him in the First Judicial District Court with two new counts of SIWOC. His probation and parole officer signed a report of violation alleging that Mitchell had failed to remain law abiding, possessed alcohol, and failed to complete sex-offender treatment. On July 15, 2021, the State petitioned to revoke Mitchell’s suspended sentence. The report attached to the petition recommended revocation of the suspended component.
¶32 Mitchell spent two periods in detention while the revocation proceeding remained pending. The 2023 presentence investigation report (PSI) asserted that those periods totaled 112 days. The State disputes that calculation and contends that Mitchell spent
12
seventy-nine days in detention after service of the revocation warrants. Mitchell maintains that the applicable detention periods commenced on July 8, 2021, when his probation officer executed the report of violation, or, alternatively, on July 16, 2021, when the District Court issued the first revocation warrant, and on July 1, 2022, when the court issued the second revocation warrant.
¶33 On January 4, 2023, the District Court found that Mitchell had violated the conditions of supervision by failing to remain law abiding and failing to comply with sex-offender treatment. The court did not sustain the alleged alcohol violation.
¶34 The State recommended a commitment of fifteen years DOC with five years suspended and advised the court that Mitchell should receive thirty-four days of detention credit. Defense counsel asked the District Court to re-suspend the entire fifteen-year component, requested “any presentencing credit,” and separately identified the periods for which Mitchell sought street-time credit.
¶35 The District Court disagreed with both recommendations. The court imposed a disposition of 15 years DOC with no time suspended. As requested by the State, the court gave Mitchell credit for 34 days, explaining the “other credit is attributed to the five years that were not suspended before.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶36 “Revocation decisions involve both legal and factual findings, and we review a district court’s legal findings de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” State v. Jardee, 2020 MT 81, ¶ 5, 399 Mont. 459, 461 P.3d 108 (cleaned up). “[T]he interpretation and construction of a statute is a matter of law and we review whether the district court
13
interpreted and applied a statute correctly de novo.” Jardee, ¶ 5 (quoting State v. Triplett, 2008 MT 360, ¶ 13, 346 Mont. 383, 195 P.3d 819).
DISCUSSION
¶37 Whether the District Court erred in its calculation of Mitchell’s credit for time served in relation to his revocation disposition.
¶38 On appeal, Mitchell argues he was entitled to 112 days of credit, and not the 34 days awarded by the District Court. The State argues all of Mitchell’s claimed credit for time served or elapsed time applies to Michell’s community supervision.1
¶39 At the revocation disposition hearing, the court revoked the 15-year suspended portion of Mitchell’s sentence and imposed a disposition of 15 years to the DOC, with no time suspended:
Mr. Mitchell, on the petition to revoke, based on the totality of the circumstances, I’m sentencing you to Montana Department of Corrections for 15 years. None of that is suspended. You’ll have to register as a Level II sex offender in accordance with the recommendation of the updated evaluation. You’ll get 34 days credit for time served. All other credit is attributed to the five years that were not suspended before.
¶40 The parties dispute whether Mitchell received appropriate credit toward his disposition. Mitchell argues he is entitled to an additional 112 days of credit for time served during the pendency of the revocation proceeding. He argues this is based upon the PSI’s calculation of days Mitchell was in custody, in addition to the 34 days of credit for
1 While it is accurate that Mitchell began serving the 5-year DOC portion on March 31, 2021, and that portion has since expired on March 31, 2026, this period of commitment is not relevant to determination of his credit for detention time served with respect to revocation of the suspended portion of his sentence.
14
time served the District Court granted him. Mitchell claims the District Court erred in applying the 112 days to the initial 5-year sentence that was not revoked.
¶41 The State disagrees. Although at the revocation disposition hearing the Deputy County Attorney recommended Mitchell receive 34 days of credit for time spent in custody toward his 15-year sentence, the State now argues on appeal that is in error. The State further disputes the request for an additional 112 days of credit for this sentence, arguing the District Court correctly ruled those days are already applied to Mitchell’s 5-year sentence that he was serving during the revocation proceedings.2
¶42 Section 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2021), requires a defendant be awarded credit for all time served on a revoked suspended sentence. The defendant must receive this credit, even if the defendant may also be incarcerated on another sentence. State v. Crazymule, 2024 MT 58, ¶¶ 11-14, 415 Mont. 536, 545 P.3d 66.
¶43 Mitchell’s probation officer prepared a report of violation on July 8, 2021, and the first revocation warrant was issued on July 16, 2021. Similar to Crazymule, upon issuance of the warrant Mitchell was detained on the revocation matter.3 Although Mitchell argues he is entitled to the time when he was detained for the new offense on July 8, there was no
2 In its brief, the State offers, “by not revoking or including the 5-year term in its disposition order, and instead imposing only the 15-year term, the district court effectively accelerated Mitchell’s discharge date by 984 days.” This appears to be inaccurate as the District Court had no authority to revoke the 5-year DOC commitment portion of his sentence and only had authority under § 46-18-203(7), MCA (2021), to revoke the suspended portion of Mitchell’s sentence, which is what it did. This issue of potentially attempting to include non-suspended time in a disposition order, however, is not before us. 3 As the revocation was filed proactively before expiration of the commitment portion of his sentence, he was also incidentally serving his original 5-year DOC commitment.
15
warrant or detainer at that point for which he was serving time. Thus, the warrant triggered Mitchell’s time that he was serving on his revocation. On September 8, 2021, Mitchell was released on the revocation matter. Thus, he is entitled to 54 days—from July 16, 2021, to September 8, 2021—of credit for time served on the revocation. Mitchell then failed to appear in the revocation proceeding and a second warrant was issued. Mitchell was then detained on that second warrant for an additional 43 days from July 6, 2022, to August 18, 2022, for which he is also entitled to credit.
¶44 Here, at the time the disposition was imposed, Mitchell had been detained on the revocation matter for 97 days. The District Court granted only 34 days of credit. Thus, Mitchell is entitled to an additional 63 days of credit for time served on his disposition.
CONCLUSION
¶45 We remand to the District Court to amend its disposition of July 12, 2023, to provide Mitchell with an additional 63 days of credit for time served on his revocation disposition.
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
Justice Katherine M. Bidegaray joins in the dissenting Opinion of Justice Ingrid Gustafson.
/S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY
Justice Laurie McKinnon, dissenting.
¶46 This matter was sent to the Court for decision on September 8, 2025. For the reasons stated in ¶¶ 42-44 of Justice Gustafson’s Dissent, it is my opinion Mitchell is entitled to
16
63 additional days of credit. The analysis contained in these three paragraphs is all that is required to resolve the question raised in this appeal.
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON