State v. Olmstead

304 Mont. 51
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 11, 2000
DocketNo. DC-99-13858
StatusPublished

This text of 304 Mont. 51 (State v. Olmstead) 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. Olmstead, 304 Mont. 51 (Mo. 2000).

Opinion

On December 8,1999, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, with five (5) years suspended; Count II: ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, all suspended; Count III: ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, all suspended; and Count IV: ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, all suspended. The sentences in Counts II, III, and IV shall run concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the sentence imposed in Count I.

On August 24, 2000, 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 Bruce Gobeo. 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 he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

It is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed, with the modification to the judgment that the eighteen (18) month restriction prior to.becoming eligible for placement in the Treasure State Correctional Training Program or any other community program be lifted, and effectively render that option available to the defendant.

The reason for the modification is that the current restriction effectively renders the Defendant ineligible for the program which the sentencing court felt would be beneficial to the Defendant’s rehabilitation.

[52]*52DATED this 11th day of September, 2000. Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey H. Langton, Membér, Hon. Marge Johnson, Member, Hon. David Cybulski.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
304 Mont. 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-olmstead-mont-2000.