State v. Savaria

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Savaria

274 Mont. 197, 52 State Rptr. 1153

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 21, 1995

Docket95-098

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 274 Mont. 197 (State v. Savaria) 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. Savaria, 274 Mont. 197, 52 State Rptr. 1153 (Mo. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

JUSTICE HUNT

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Appellant, Richard Savaria was sentenced in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County to a term of ten years in the Montana State Prison on seven counts of felony theft.

*198 We affirm the conviction and remand for resentencing.

The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in failing to consider the alternatives to imprisonment at the Montana State Prison for a non-violent felony offender, pursuant to §§ 46-18-201(10) and 46-18-225, MCA.

It is undisputed that the appellant is a non-violent felony offender pursuant to the statutory definition contained in § 46-18-104(3), MCA, and the court should have considered § 46-18-201(10), MCA, which imposes certain obligations on a court sentencing such an offender:

In sentencing a non-violent offender, the court shall first consider alternatives to imprisonment of the offender in the state prison, including placement of the offender in a community corrections facility or program. In considering alternatives to imprisonment the court shall examine the sentencing criteria contained in § 46-18-225, MCA. If the offender is subsequently sentenced to the state prison or a women’s correctional facility, the court shall state its reasons why alternatives to imprisonment were not selected, based on the criteria contained in 46-18-225.

See State v. Pence (1995), [273 Mont. 223], 902 P.2d 41; State v. LaMere (1995), [272 Mont. 355], 900 P.2d 926; State v. Stevens (1993), 259 Mont. 114, 115-16, 854 P.2d 336, 337-38.

The Attorney General has filed herein a Notice of Concession, conceding that the matter should be remanded to the District Court for resentencing.

We hold that the District Court failed to properly sentence the defendant under applicable sentencing statutes.

We affirm the conviction and remand for resentencing.

JUSTICES NELSON, TRIEWEILER LEAPHART and ERDMANN concur.

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

JUSTICE HUNT

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Appellant, Richard Savaria was sentenced in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County to a term of ten years in the Montana State Prison on seven counts of felony theft.

*198 We affirm the conviction and remand for resentencing.

The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in failing to consider the alternatives to imprisonment at the Montana State Prison for a non-violent felony offender, pursuant to §§ 46-18-201(10) and 46-18-225, MCA.

It is undisputed that the appellant is a non-violent felony offender pursuant to the statutory definition contained in § 46-18-104(3), MCA, and the court should have considered § 46-18-201(10), MCA, which imposes certain obligations on a court sentencing such an offender:

In sentencing a non-violent offender, the court shall first consider alternatives to imprisonment of the offender in the state prison, including placement of the offender in a community corrections facility or program. In considering alternatives to imprisonment the court shall examine the sentencing criteria contained in § 46-18-225, MCA. If the offender is subsequently sentenced to the state prison or a women’s correctional facility, the court shall state its reasons why alternatives to imprisonment were not selected, based on the criteria contained in 46-18-225.

See State v. Pence (1995), [273 Mont. 223], 902 P.2d 41; State v. LaMere (1995), [272 Mont. 355], 900 P.2d 926; State v. Stevens (1993), 259 Mont. 114, 115-16, 854 P.2d 336, 337-38.

The Attorney General has filed herein a Notice of Concession, conceding that the matter should be remanded to the District Court for resentencing.

We hold that the District Court failed to properly sentence the defendant under applicable sentencing statutes.

We affirm the conviction and remand for resentencing.

JUSTICES NELSON, TRIEWEILER LEAPHART and ERDMANN concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 Mont. 197, 52 State Rptr. 1153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-savaria-mont-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack