State v. McNees
This text of 325 Mont. 93 (State v. McNees) 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 March 11, 2004, the defendant was sentenced to a Five (5) year commitment to the Department of Corrections, for violations of the conditions of a deferred sentence for the offense of Issuing a Bad Check (Common Scheme), a felony.
On September 24, 2004, 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 Martin Eveland. 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 increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.
Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).
The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.
Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.
Done in open Court this 24th day of September, 2004.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
325 Mont. 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcnees-mont-2004.