State v. Smith

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Smith

210 Mont. 13

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 6, 1984

DocketNo. (C)DC-82-015

StatusPublished

This text of 210 Mont. 13 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 210 Mont. 13 (Mo. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

The application of the above-named defendant for a review of the sentence of 10 years plus $200 restitution imposed on June 8, 1983, was fully heard and after a careful consideration of the entire matter it is decided that: the sentence shall remain the same as originally imposed, and it shall be served concurrently with any other sentence the Defendant is serving, however, the restitution shall be dropped.

The sentence is not changed basically, it only clarifies the judgment made by the sentencing judge, and in order to conform with the requirements as set forth in 46-18-201, MCA, restitution is only applicable it a portion of the sentence is suspended, which in this case it is not.

We wish to thank Steve Swanberg, Attorney at Law, from Great Falls for his assistance to the Defendant and to this Court.

SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION Joseph B. Gary, Mark P. Sullivan, John S. Henson

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 10 years plus $200 restitution imposed on June 8, 1983, was fully heard and after a careful consideration of the entire matter it is decided that: the sentence shall remain the same as originally imposed, and it shall be served concurrently with any other sentence the Defendant is serving, however, the restitution shall be dropped.

The sentence is not changed basically, it only clarifies the judgment made by the sentencing judge, and in order to conform with the requirements as set forth in 46-18-201, MCA, restitution is only applicable it a portion of the sentence is suspended, which in this case it is not.

We wish to thank Steve Swanberg, Attorney at Law, from Great Falls for his assistance to the Defendant and to this Court.

SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION Joseph B. Gary, Mark P. Sullivan, John S. Henson

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 Mont. 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-mont-1984.