Summary
The Montana Sentence Review Division continued the defendant’s sentence review hearing after determining that he had not previously been given notice of his right to apply for sentence review. The hearing was rescheduled for the next available February 2017 hearings, with notice to be provided to interested parties.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant's sentence-review application should proceed despite the apparent delay after sentencing when the defendant had not been given notice of his right to apply for sentence review.
- Whether the scheduled sentence-review hearing should be continued to permit the defendant to receive the hearing to which he was entitled.
Holdings
- Because the defendant had never been given notice of his right to apply for sentence review, he was entitled to a sentence-review hearing notwithstanding the apparent two-year delay in filing.
- The sentence-review application was continued to the next available hearings in February 2017, and neither party was required to submit briefs.
Key quotations
“The next day, November 18, 2016, the Division judges were apprised that the Defendant had never been given a Notice of Right to Apply for Sentence Review and he was entitled to a hearing.” (98)
“Given the facts, neither party is required to submit briefs and Mr. Bearcomesout’s sentence review hearing will be heard at the February hearings.” (98)
Factual background
The defendant was sentenced to forty years in prison with five years suspended for deliberate homicide, followed by a consecutive five-year weapon sentence, together with a parole restriction and restitution. His sentence-review hearing was scheduled approximately two years after sentencing. The Division learned that the defendant had never been provided notice of his right to apply for sentence review.
Procedural history
On October 30, 2014, the defendant was sentenced to a forty-five-year sentence, with five years suspended, for deliberate homicide and use of a weapon. His sentence-review application was scheduled for hearing on November 17, 2016. After the State questioned the timeliness of the application, the Division learned that the defendant had never received notice of his right to seek sentence review, concluded that he was entitled to a hearing, and continued the review to February 2017 without requiring briefing.
Remand instructions
The Sentence Review Division continued the sentence-review hearing to the next available hearings in February 2017 and directed that interested parties receive notification of the actual time and date four weeks in advance.