Summary
The Montana Supreme Court's Sentence Review Division considered the defendant's application to modify a sentence imposed for felony criminal endangerment, committed with mental illness. The Division unanimously affirmed the sentence, finding that the reasons for modification did not establish that it was clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant's sentence was clearly inadequate or clearly excessive under Montana's sentence-review standard.
- Whether the district court sentence should be reduced or increased on sentence review.
Holdings
- The sentence was neither clearly inadequate nor clearly excessive, so modification was unwarranted.
Key quotations
“The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (83)
Factual background
The defendant was convicted of felony criminal endangerment, but mentally ill. The district court committed him to the custody of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services for ten years, with three years suspended, and ordered the sentence to run consecutively to a sentence he was already serving for felony assault on a peace officer or judicial officer. The defendant sought review of the sentence, but the Sentence Review Division found the reasons advanced for modification insufficient.
Procedural history
On July 14, 2015, the district court found the defendant guilty of felony criminal endangerment, mentally ill, and imposed a ten-year sentence with three years suspended, to run consecutively to a sentence in another case. The defendant sought sentence review before the Sentence Review Division on August 5, 2016. After advising the defendant that the Division could increase or decrease the sentence and that its decision was not appealable, the Division unanimously affirmed the sentence.