Christofferson v. State, 95-241

Decision Date29 August 1995
Docket NumberNo. 95-241,95-241
Citation901 P.2d 588,272 Mont. 518
PartiesBret CHRISTOFFERSON, Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE of Montana, Respondent and Respondent.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

Bret Christofferson, Deer Lodge, pro se.

Honorable Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Patricia Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Merle Raph, Special Deputy Liberty County Attorney, Shelby, for respondent.

TURNAGE, Chief Justice.

Bret Christofferson appeals from an order of the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Liberty County, denying his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

In the absence of a statement of the issue by Christofferson, we state the issue as whether the District Court erred in denying the petition for post-conviction relief.

In January 1992, Christofferson was adjudged guilty of burglary, based upon a plea bargain. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, with five years suspended. The court set forth ten terms and conditions of probation for the period of suspension.

Christofferson began serving his prison sentence on January 22, 1992, and was paroled on April 8, 1993. In December 1993, the State of Montana petitioned for revocation of Christofferson's suspended sentence because he had violated terms and conditions of the January 1992 judgment. After a hearing, the District Court revoked the suspended portion of Christofferson's sentence and ordered that he shall serve the remaining portion of his ten-year sentence at the Montana State Prison, with credit given for time expired on the sentence.

Christofferson was returned to Montana State Prison. There, the Board of Pardons notified him that it had revoked his remaining parole time on the non-suspended portion of his sentence. Christofferson wrote to the District Court in protest, arguing that he is being subjected to double jeopardy.

Construing Christofferson's letter in a manner in which relief could possibly be granted at that stage of the proceedings, the District Court considered the letter as a petition for post-conviction relief. It asked for a response from the State of Montana. The court subsequently ruled that it did not constitute double jeopardy for it to revoke the suspended part of Christofferson's sentence and for the Board of Pardons to revoke his parole on the non-suspended portion of the sentence. Christofferson appeals.

Did the District Court err in denying the petition for post-conviction relief?

The facts underlying Christofferson's petition for post-conviction relief are not in dispute. In reviewing a district court's denial of post-conviction relief, we will not overturn the court's legal conclusions if the court's interpretation of the law is correct. Wagner v. State (Mont.1995), 889 P.2d 1189, 1190, 52 St.Rep. 61, 61.

Christofferson's argument is based on his perception that, at the revocation hearing, the District Court determined that he had already finished the non-suspended portion of his sentence and that the court then gave him credit for it. While that perception may be valid, at least in part, Christofferson's conclusion is not valid.

In ruling on the petition for post-conviction relief, the District Court stated:

At the revocation hearing there may have been some confusion because there was no record of whether the first, non-suspended portion of the sentence had been discharged because of a grant of good time credit.

The court went on to describe why the apparent confusion had no effect:

However, it is clear from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Morrison
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • January 22, 2008
    ...the period of probation commences. Sullivan, 197 Mont. at 401, 642 P.2d at 1011. ¶ 16 We reaffirmed Sullivan in Christofferson v. State, 272 Mont. 518, 901 P.2d 588 (1995). There, the district court revoked the defendant's suspended sentence while he was still on parole and prior to the beg......
  • State v. Stiffarm
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • January 26, 2011
    ...Stiffarm acknowledges that we have previously interpreted this statute in a manner contrary to his argument in Christofferson v. State, 272 Mont. 518, 901 P.2d 588 (1995), State v. Vallier, 2000 MT 225, 301 Mont. 228, 8 P.3d 112, State v. Morrison, 2008 MT 16, 341 Mont. 147, 176 P.3d 1027, ......
  • State v. LeDeau
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • August 18, 2009
    ...46-23-1023, MCA. Revocation of parole does not constitute punishment for purposes of double jeopardy. See Christofferson v. State, 272 Mont. 518, 520-21, 901 P.2d 588, 589 (1995) (finding district court did not err in denying petition for post-conviction relief, which stemmed from revocatio......
  • State v. Vallier, 99-309.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • August 17, 2000
    ...the transition date from parole to suspended sentence time when his suspended sentence was rightfully revoked); Christofferson v. State (1995), 272 Mont. 518, 901 P.2d 588 (a suspended sentence was revoked because the parolee violated its terms before the suspended sentence time had begun).......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT