State v. Jardee

Decision Date07 April 2020
Docket NumberDA 18-0164
Parties STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Charles Edward JARDEE, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Michael Marchesini, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Damon Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Darcy L. Wassmann, Fallon County Attorney, Baker, Montana

Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Charles Edward Jardee (Jardee) appeals the order denying his request for credit for time served while he was released on bail during the pendency of his probation revocation proceeding. We affirm, and restate the issue as follows:

Did the District Court err by denying Jardee’s request for "street time" credit toward his revocation sentence under § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2017)?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In March of 2014, the District Court sentenced Jardee for two counts of felony partner or family member assault. Jardee was sentenced to five years in the Montana State Prison fully suspended for count one, and a consecutive five years with two years suspended for count two. Jardee began serving the seven year suspended portion of his sentence in March of 2017.

¶3 In August of 2017, the State filed a petition to revoke Jardee’s suspended sentence after Jardee’s girlfriend reported to law enforcement that Jardee had been drinking excessively, leading him to be verbally and physically abusive toward her. She told police Jardee had shouted obscenities at her, spit chew in her face, and broken her furniture. Upon further investigation, the State discovered numerous violations of sentencing conditions by Jardee. Jardee reported to probation and parole that he was living at 612 East Montana Avenue in Baker, Montana, but he was actually living with his girlfriend at 514 W. Fallon Avenue in Baker. Jardee also failed to register this correct address on the violent offender registry. Under the terms of his sentence, Jardee was not to "marry, cohabit with, date or socialize with any female," and he was supposed to report his correct address, not only with probation and parole, but on the violent offender registry as well. Additionally, upon searching Jardee’s home, police discovered a firearm, which Jardee was prohibited from possessing. Upon his arrest on or about August 3, 2017, police administered a preliminary breath test, which indicated Jardee’s blood alcohol level was .09. Jardee’s sentence prohibited him from consuming alcohol.

¶4 Jardee was arraigned in the revocation proceeding on September 5, 2017, after which he was released upon posting bond. In December of 2017, after hearing, the District Court found the State had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Jardee violated the terms of his suspended sentence as alleged in the revocation petition. At a subsequent dispositional hearing, Jardee requested the District Court grant him credit against his sentence pursuant to § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2017), for four months of "street time" he had served on his sentence between his release on bond and sentencing. The District Court denied Jardee’s request. In its oral pronouncement, the District Court stated:

Reasons for the sentence ... the underlying offenses are significant, they are assaultive behavior, they are to the point that the previous sentencing Judge ordered you not to have any contact with – with women which you violated. I haven’t seen that condition before.... it was significant and you flagrantly violated it because from the time you were released you did not ... live with your Mother, you lived in your house with your Girlfriend. The violations of the probation are significant from the failure to reside in your residence, you basically lied about that, you continue to lie about that to your ... probation officer .

(Emphasis added.) The District Court entered its Revocation, Judgment and Sentencing Order on January 29, 2018, stating in relation to Jardee’s sentence:

[T]here are numerous violations. The Defendant is 50 years old and has waited this long to get his life in [o]rder. It is apparent to the Court that the Defendant has engaged in a lot of criminal thinking. The Defendant lost his job, drove under the influence of alcohol, treated [his girlfriend] poorly, who is a person he should not have been around, and the Defendant has had other violations that have not been brought before this Court. It isn’t 1 or 2 things, it was a whole pattern of his life and the Defendant is asking the Court to reward him for the last 3 months of his good behavior.

The District Court revoked Jardee’s suspended sentence and committed him to the Montana State Prison for five years on his first count, and two years on his second, without applying any credit for street time. Jardee appeals the denial of his request for street time credit.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5 This Court reviews a district court’s decision to revoke a suspended sentence to determine whether the court abused its discretion. Additionally, "revocation decisions involve both legal and factual findings[,]" and we review a district court’s legal findings de novo and its factual findings for clear error. "A district court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial credible evidence, if the court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if a review of the record leaves this Court with the definite firm conviction that a mistake has been made." State v. Johnson , 2018 MT 277, ¶ 10, 393 Mont. 320, 430 P.3d 494. Finally, "the interpretation and construction of a statute is a matter of law and we review whether the district court interpreted and applied a statute correctly de novo." State v. Triplett , 2008 MT 360, ¶ 13, 346 Mont. 383, 195 P.3d 819.

DISCUSSION

¶6 Did the District Court err by denying Jardee’s request for "street time" credit toward his revocation sentence under § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2017)?

¶7 Jardee argues the District Court erred by denying him street time credit for the period between his release on bond and his revocation sentencing because the 2017 version of § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA, required that credit be given for any period of time where there is no "record or recollection of the probation and parole officer" that he violated the terms of his sentence. Jardee contends there was no evidence in the "record or recollection" that he committed any violation during those four months. The State responds that, while "the black and white interpretation of this statute may seem clear, the application of the statute is problematic, especially where the record reflects a pattern of repetitive non-compliance." Additionally, the State argues Jardee’s argument fails to account for his pattern of non-compliance, and "the ongoing violations that permeated [Jardee’s] time under supervision were circumstantially supported by the record to have continued after his release on bond."

¶8 When interpreting a statute, this Court will not look beyond its plain language if the language is clear and unambiguous. Mont. Sports Shooting Ass’n v. State , 2008 MT 190, ¶ 11, 344 Mont. 1, 185 P.3d 1003. As such, "we interpret a statute first by looking to its plain language. We construe a statute by reading and interpreting the statute as a whole, without isolating specific terms from the context in which they are used by the legislature.... Statutory construction should not lead to absurd results if a reasonable interpretation can avoid it." City of Missoula v. Fox , 2019 MT 250, ¶ 18, 397 Mont. 388, 450 P.3d 898 (quoting Mont. Sports Shooting Ass’n , ¶ 11 ) (internal quotations omitted). Finally, "in construing a statute, this Court presumes that the legislature intended to make some change in existing law by passing it." Cantwell v. Geiger , 228 Mont. 330, 333-34, 742 P.2d 468, 470 (1987) (citing State ex rel. Dick Irvin, Inc. v. Anderson , 164 Mont. 513, 524, 525 P.2d 564, 570 (1974)) ; see also Mont. Sports Shooting Ass’n , ¶ 15.

¶9 Prior to the 2017 revisions, § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA, provided:

If a suspended or deferred sentence is revoked, the judge shall consider any elapsed time and either 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. The judge shall state the reasons for the judge’s determination in the order. Credit must be allowed for time served in a detention center or home arrest time already served.

The Legislature amended the statute in 2017 as part of a larger effort to enact reforms of Montana’s criminal justice system. The statute now provides:

If a suspended or deferred sentence is revoked, the judge shall consider any elapsed time, consult the records and recollection of the probation and parole officer, and allow all of the elapsed time served without any record or recollection of violations as a credit against the sentence. If the judge determines that elapsed time should not be credited, the judge shall state the reasons for the determination in the order. Credit must be allowed for time served in a detention center or for home arrest time already served.

(Emphasis added.)

¶10 Examination of the plain language of the statute reveals that the prior version granted discretion to a sentencing court to either grant or deny credit for street time: "the judge shall consider any elapsed time and either 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." (Emphasis added.) However, the 2017 version of the statute eliminates this discretion, requiring credit if there have been no violations: "the judge shall ... allow all of the elapsed time served without any record or recollection of violations as a credit against the sentence." (Emphasis added.) We acknowledge the State’s concern that the language of the 2017...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Lamoureux
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • April 20, 2021
    ...¶25 When interpreting a statute, this Court will not look beyond its plain language if the language is clear and unambiguous. State v. Jardee , 2020 MT 81, ¶ 8, 399 Mont. 459, 461 P.3d 108. We construe a statute by reading and interpreting the statute as a whole, without isolating specific ......
  • Twin Creeks Farm & Ranch, LLC v. Petrolia Irrigation Dist.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • April 7, 2020
    ... ... The evidence need not amount to a preponderance of the evidence, but it must be more than a scintilla. Skelton Ranch , 27 (citing State v. Shodair , 273 Mont. 155, 163, 902 P. 2d 21, 26 (1995) ). "This standard is deferential, and not synonymous with the clear error standard. A 399 ... ...
  • State v. Wood
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • May 24, 2022
    ...we conclude that the issue is properly before the Court.¶30 We review revocations of suspended sentences for abuse of discretion. State v. Jardee , 2020 MT 81, ¶ 5, 399 Mont. 459, 461 P.3d 108. Because revocation decisions involve both legal and factual findings, we review a district court'......
  • State v. Souther
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • October 18, 2022
    ...and we review whether the district court interpreted and applied a statute correctly de novo." State v. Jardee, 2020 MT 81, ¶ 5, 399 Mont. 459, 461 P.3d 108 (quoting v. Triplett, 2008 MT 360, ¶ 13, 346 Mont. 383, 195 P.3d 819). DISCUSSION ¶7 Did Souther receive an illegal sentence when he w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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