State v. Dennison

2015 MT 49N (Mont. 2015) · Supreme Court of Montana · February 17, 2015 · No. DA 14-0143

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Randall Alan Dennison’s request for credit for time served while on probation and for custody attributed to a prior DUI sentence. The court held that the appeal was untimely because it was filed beyond the 60-day period for appealing a criminal judgment. It also concluded that the district court had statutory authority to deny probation credit and that the DUI sentence had not been revoked.

Court
Supreme Court of Montana
Writing for the Court
Justice James Jeremiah Shea; James Jeremiah Shea; Mike McGrath; Laurie McKinnon; Patricia Cotter; Michael E. Wheat
Jurisdiction
Montana
Decision date
February 17, 2015
Docket number
DA 14-0143
Procedural posture
Dennison appealed the denial of his petition for an amended judgment and credit for time served. The Supreme Court of Montana held that the appeal was untimely and, alternatively, that his claims for credit were meritless.
Standard of review
Criminal sentences are reviewed for legality, including whether the sentence is within statutory parameters.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Randall Alan Dennison v. State of Montana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate proceduresentencingsentence modificationcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawappellate practicesentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Dennison's appeal from the 2011 sentence was timely under Montana's 60-day criminal-appeal deadline.
  2. Whether the District Court had statutory authority to deny credit for time served while Dennison was on probation after revocation of his suspended burglary sentence.
  3. Whether Dennison was entitled to credit for time served allegedly attributable to his 2005 DUI sentence.

Holdings

  1. Dennison's direct appeal from the sentence was untimely because he filed his notice of appeal nearly three years after entry of judgment, well beyond the 60-day period for criminal appeals.
  2. A sentencing court may deny credit for time served on probation when it revokes a suspended sentence, and the District Court acted within its statutory authority by denying Dennison such credit.
  3. Dennison was not entitled to credit for time served on the 2005 DUI because that sentence was not revoked and the revocation hearing and resulting judgment concerned only the burglary sentence.

Key quotations

We therefore deny Dennison’s appeal as untimely. (¶ 6)
When a district court revokes a suspended sentence it may “expressly allow all or part of the time as a credit against the sentence or reject all or part of the time as a credit.” (¶ 7)
Affirmed. (¶ 10)

Factual background

Dennison received a suspended sentence for a 1999 burglary conviction and later pleaded guilty to felony DUI. After admitting probation violations, he received a five-year DOC commitment for the burglary and 234 days of credit for time spent incarcerated pending revocation, but no credit for time served on probation. He later sought additional credit for probationary time and for custody allegedly attributable to the DUI sentence.

Procedural history

Dennison pleaded guilty to burglary in 2000 and later pleaded guilty to felony DUI. After revocation proceedings concerning his burglary sentence, the District Court entered a June 2011 judgment granting 234 days of credit for time served pending revocation but denying credit for time spent on probation. Dennison filed a petition for an amended judgment in 2013, which the District Court denied in January 2014. He filed his notice of appeal in March 2014, nearly three years after entry of the relevant judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…