State v. Downing, 14394
| Decision Date | 12 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 14394,14394 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Samuel Mark DOWNING, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Douglas G. Harkin, Hamilton, Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., Helena, Richard A. Larson argued, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, for defendant and appellant.
Robert J. Campbell argued, Missoula, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Ravalli County District Court which denied his motion to dismiss and granted the county attorney's petition to revoke defendant's suspended sentence. Because of the nature of the question involved, the District Court judge delayed imposition of sentence pending review by this Court as to his authority to impose a sentence.
Defendant Samuel Mark Downing was arrested on November 10, 1972 and charged with burglary of a motor vehicle, a felony under section 94-901, R.C.M.1947 (since repealed). Upon entry of a guilty plea, Downing was sentenced to three years imprisonment at Montana State Prison, with sentence suspended upon the condition that he comply with all the rules and regulations of the Montana Board of Pardons. Defendant's sentence commenced running on November 19, 1973, the day it was imposed.
Approximately two and a half years later (May 14, 1976), the county attorney filed a petition seeking the revocation of Downing's suspended sentence for the reason that defendant had sold "dangerous drugs" to a Missoula man. On May 28, 1976, defendant appeared in District Court and admitted he had sold dangerous drugs. On that same day, the District Court revoked defendant's suspended sentence and entered another judgment whereby defendant was sentenced to spend sixty days in the Ravalli County Jail and thirty-four months on suspended sentence status.
Defendant served the sixty days in the Ravalli County Jail, and then returned to his home in Missoula, Montana. More than a year and a half later, on February 24, 1978, the Ravalli county attorney again filed a petition seeking to revoke defendant's suspended sentence. The grounds for this revocation are not pertinent to this appeal.
Defendant moved to dismiss the county attorney's petition to revoke, his motion was denied, and the District Court granted the petition to revoke defendant's suspended sentence. According to the State, the District Court could still sentence defendant to serve thirty-four months in the State Prison. However, before pronouncement of sentence, the District Court, because of the nature of the legal questions presented, authorized defendant to take this appeal.
Downing first contends that the District Court did not have statutory authority to enter its May 28, 1976 judgment wherein it altered the original three year (suspended) sentence; and, he further contends that the May 28 judgment violates the double jeopardy provision of the Montana and United States Constitutions. Since this appeal can be decided solely on the question of statutory authority, we need not address the constitutional argument.
Once a valid sentence is imposed, the court lacks jurisdiction to vacate or modify it unless specifically authorized by statute. State v. Porter (1964), 143 Mont. 528, 540, 391 P.2d 704. Here, defendant concedes that the District Court had the power to revoke his 1973 suspended sentence and require him to serve a three year term in prison. Defendant contends the District Court overstepped its statutory authority by revoking his suspended sentence and then modifying his original sentence by requiring him to serve sixty days in the Ravalli County Jail and another thirty-four months on suspended sentence status. The State's position seems to be that a three year suspended sentence can technically impede the defendant for the rest of his life.
The pertinent statute in effect at the time, section 95-2206(6), R.C.M.1947, provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Docken, 95-128
...imposition of a sentence of five years in the Women's Correctional Facility is void. Docken relies on our decision in State v. Downing (1979), 181 Mont. 242, 593 P.2d 43, to assert that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to revoke her suspended sentence and impose a second suspended sen......
-
State v. Senn
...sentence, the District Court does not have "completely unbridled discretion," quoting this Court's decision in State v. Downing (1979), 181 Mont. 242, 245, 593 P.2d 43, 45 (overruled by State v. Docken (1995), 274 Mont. 296, 908 P.2d 213), and that it should not punish Senn for his "innocuo......
-
Marriage of Jacobson, In re
... ... Appellant states that it has always been the policy of the courts of this state that a farm or ranch should be kept intact and operated as a unit. Appellant argues that the ... ...
-
Marriage of Aanenson, In re
... ... The wife is 22 years old, and is employed by the Manhattan State Bank as a bookkeeper-teller. She has a high school education and one year of vocational training ... ...