State v. Speiser
This text of 286 Mont. 20 (State v. Speiser) 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.
Opinion
On June 3, 1996, it was the judgment of the Court that Michael Jack Speiser be and is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years on Count II (Theft, a Felony) for suitable placement, which may include an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correctional institution. It is the judgment of the Court that Michael Jack Speiser be and is hereby sentenced to a term of six (6) months each on Count III through VI (misdemeanors) in the Missoula County Jail in Missoula, Montana. The sentences shall run concurrently with each other. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail from January 3, 1996, through date of sentencing, June 3, 1996, in the amount of one hundred fifty-two (152) days.
On February 20, 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 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 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 20th day of February, 1997.
Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Wm. Neis Swandal and Member, Hon. Richard G. Phillips.
The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Michael Jack Speiser for representing himself in this matter.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
286 Mont. 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-speiser-mont-1997.