State v. Sewell

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Sewell

154 Mont. 8

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 29, 1969

DocketNO. 6942

StatusPublished

This text of 154 Mont. 8 (State v. Sewell) 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. Sewell, 154 Mont. 8 (Mo. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

The application of the above-named defendant for a review of the sentence of five years for robbery, imposed on July 18, 1967, was fully heard and after a careful consideration of the entire matter it is decided that:

The sentence be and remain as originally imposed.

The presumption being that the sentencing judge was correct in his determination, we are unable to say that this sentence was not proper, reasonable and quite lenient, the crime, the individual, and the sentencing goals kept in mind, particularly when it is considered that the crime is one of violence punishable by imprisonment for life or years without limit; that defendant originally received, perhaps because of his youth, deferred imposition of sentence and did not receive this sentence until the commission of another crime. Further, defendant was paroled May 31, 1968, and violated that parole, yet may ask for parole consideration in April 1970.

SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION

Philip C. Duncan, chairman; Paul G. Hatfield and Sid G. Stewart.

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

DECISION

The application of the above-named defendant for a review of the sentence of five years for robbery, imposed on July 18, 1967, was fully heard and after a careful consideration of the entire matter it is decided that:

The sentence be and remain as originally imposed.

The presumption being that the sentencing judge was correct in his determination, we are unable to say that this sentence was not proper, reasonable and quite lenient, the crime, the individual, and the sentencing goals kept in mind, particularly when it is considered that the crime is one of violence punishable by imprisonment for life or years without limit; that defendant originally received, perhaps because of his youth, deferred imposition of sentence and did not receive this sentence until the commission of another crime. Further, defendant was paroled May 31, 1968, and violated that parole, yet may ask for parole consideration in April 1970.

SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION

Philip C. Duncan, chairman; Paul G. Hatfield and Sid G. Stewart.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 Mont. 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sewell-mont-1969.