State v. Parker

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Parker

286 Mont. 56

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 13, 1997

DocketNO. 10222

StatusPublished

This text of 286 Mont. 56 (State v. Parker) 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. Parker, 286 Mont. 56 (Mo. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

On December 4, 1996, the Court finds that the defendant is in violation of the [57]*57conditions of his suspended sentence and it is the judgment of the Court that defendant’s prior suspended sentence is hereby revoked and that the defendant be and he is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of two and one-half (2 1/2) years for suitable placement, which may include an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correctional institution. It is the recommendation of the Court that the defendant be screened for placement in a pre-release program. Due to the defendant’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence while under the supervision of the Department of Probation and Parole, the Court finds that he is not entitled to receive, and shall not receive, credit for any elapsed time between the date of his conviction and the date of this Order, except that he shall receive credit from February 12, 1996, through April 11, 1996; and from October 31, 1996, through date of sentencing, December 4,1996, for ninety-five (95) days jail time which he has previously served.

DATED this 13th day of June, 1997.

On May 8,1997, 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 proceeded Pro Se. The state was represented by Josh Van de Wetering, Deputy County Attorney of Missoula County.

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 to 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.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "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." (Section 45-18-904(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.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of May, 1997.

Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Wm. Neis Swandal and Member, Hon. Robert Boyd.

The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Paul E. Parker for representing himself in this matter and also Josh Van de Wetering, Deputy County Attorney of Missoula County, for representing the State.

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

On December 4, 1996, the Court finds that the defendant is in violation of the [57]*57conditions of his suspended sentence and it is the judgment of the Court that defendant’s prior suspended sentence is hereby revoked and that the defendant be and he is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of two and one-half (2 1/2) years for suitable placement, which may include an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correctional institution. It is the recommendation of the Court that the defendant be screened for placement in a pre-release program. Due to the defendant’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence while under the supervision of the Department of Probation and Parole, the Court finds that he is not entitled to receive, and shall not receive, credit for any elapsed time between the date of his conviction and the date of this Order, except that he shall receive credit from February 12, 1996, through April 11, 1996; and from October 31, 1996, through date of sentencing, December 4,1996, for ninety-five (95) days jail time which he has previously served.