State v. Magruder

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Magruder

263 Mont. 47

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 7, 1993

DocketNO. DC-87-159

StatusPublished

This text of 263 Mont. 47 (State v. Magruder) 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. Magruder, 263 Mont. 47 (Mo. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

On February 11, 1988, the Defendant was sentenced to Count I, ten (10) years for Felony Assault; Count II, forty (40) years for Mitigated Deliberate Homicide. Counts I and II shall be served concurrently to each other. The Defendant knowingly used a dangerous weapon and is sentenced to a term of ten (10) years. This sentence shall be served consecutively with the terms imposed for Count I and Count II. The additional ten (10) year sentence shall run concurrently on each Count, however. It was further ordered that the defendant is designated a Persistent Felony Offender, and the consecutive sentence imposed for use of a dangerous weapon is sufficient to also apply to the Persistent Felony Offender statute in Section 46-18-502, MCA. The Defendant is given credit for 252 days time served and is designated as a Dangerous Offender.

The Defendant was present and was represented by William Hritsco, Legal Intern from the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority to increase the sentence, to leave it as it is, or reduce it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from the 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.

Hon. Thomas McKittrick, Chairman, Hon. G. Todd Baugh, and Hon. John Warner, Judges

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank William Hritsco, Legal Intern from the Montana Defender Project 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

On February 11, 1988, the Defendant was sentenced to Count I, ten (10) years for Felony Assault; Count II, forty (40) years for Mitigated Deliberate Homicide. Counts I and II shall be served concurrently to each other. The Defendant knowingly used a dangerous weapon and is sentenced to a term of ten (10) years. This sentence shall be served consecutively with the terms imposed for Count I and Count II. The additional ten (10) year sentence shall run concurrently on each Count, however. It was further ordered that the defendant is designated a Persistent Felony Offender, and the consecutive sentence imposed for use of a dangerous weapon is sufficient to also apply to the Persistent Felony Offender statute in Section 46-18-502, MCA. The Defendant is given credit for 252 days time served and is designated as a Dangerous Offender.

The Defendant was present and was represented by William Hritsco, Legal Intern from the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority to increase the sentence, to leave it as it is, or reduce it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from the 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.

Hon. Thomas McKittrick, Chairman, Hon. G. Todd Baugh, and Hon. John Warner, Judges

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank William Hritsco, Legal Intern from the Montana Defender Project for his assistance to the defendant and to this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 Mont. 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-magruder-mont-1993.