State v. Osborne, No. DA 06-0206.
| Docket Nº | No. DA 06-0206. |
| Citation | 167 P.3d 405, 339 Mont. 45, 2007 MT 217 |
| Case Date | September 05, 2007 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
v.
James OSBORNE, Defendant and Appellant.
For Appellant: Meghan Lulf Sutton, Great Falls, Montana.
For Respondent: Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Carol E. Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Steve Gannon, County Attorney, Fort Benton, Montana.
Justice JIM RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 Defendant James Osborne (Osborne) appeals from the District Court's order revoking
his suspended sentence for failure to complete sex offender treatment. We affirm.
¶ 2 We address the following issue:
¶ 3 Did the District Court abuse its discretion by revoking Osborne's suspended sentence for failing to complete sex offender treatment?
¶ 4 On October 15, 1996, Osborne was charged with the offense of sexual intercourse without consent, a felony, in violation of § 45-5-503(3)(a), MCA. Following a jury trial, Osborne was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in the Montana State Prison, with eight years suspended. His conviction was affirmed by the Court. State v. Osborne, 1999 MT 149, 295 Mont. 54, 982 P.2d 1045. After serving the prison portion of his sentence, Osborne began serving the suspended portion on January 23, 2003, under several conditions, including that he enroll in and complete a sexual offender treatment program to the satisfaction of his probation and parole officer.
¶ 5 On April 27, 2005, the County Attorney petitioned the District Court for revocation of Osborne's suspended sentence due to five asserted violations of the suspended sentence conditions. The petition alleged that Osborne had violated the residency and employment requirements, failed to pay supervision fees, failed to complete a sexual offender treatment program, and had engaged in unsupervised contact with a minor child. The District Court ordered an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
¶ 6 The primary focus of the hearing was Osborne's alleged failure to complete a sexual offender treatment program. Osborne testified that he had not completed a sexual offender treatment program because he was innocent of the charges and had difficulty attending group sessions. The County Attorney offered the testimony of Osborne's probation officer, Dawn Handa (Handa). Handa testified that Osborne had been discharged from two different counseling programs. The first dismissal was based on Osborne's failure to identify any reasons for treatment, identify a cycle of abuse, or complete any of the assigned homework, as well as his inability to pay for treatment. At the time of his dismissal he had completed only half of the workbook he had been given eighteen months earlier and the counselor was concerned with his level of inactivity during group sessions, as he often fell asleep. Osborne then entered a second program and was subsequently terminated from that program for dishonesty. Handa explained that the programs were specifically developed for defendants like Osborne, who denied his guilt. Handa testified that, while it is difficult to treat deniers, individuals that deny guilt are treated using different counseling methods than individuals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morrison, DA 06-0262.
...a district court's decision to revoke a defendant's suspended sentence to determine if there was an abuse of discretion. State v. Osborne, 2007 MT 217, ¶ 8, 339 Mont. 45, ¶ 8, 167 P.3d 405, ¶ 8. Where the issue is whether the court had authority to take a specific action, the question is on......
-
In re X.V.H., DA 13–0858.
...X.V.H.'s probation, independent of X.V.H.'s initial unwillingness to admit to this further offense. The State cites State v. Osborne, 2007 MT 217, ¶ 12, 339 Mont. 45, 167 P.3d 405, in which we distinguished Imlay and found revocation of probation was proper when “Osborne failed the program ......
-
State v. Morrison, DA 06-0262.
...a district court's decision to revoke a defendant's suspended sentence to determine if there was an abuse of discretion. State v. Osborne, 2007 MT 217, ¶ 8, 339 Mont. 45, ¶ 8, 167 P.3d 405, ¶ 8. Where the issue is whether the court had authority to take a specific action, the question is on......
-
In re X.V.H., DA 13–0858.
...X.V.H.'s probation, independent of X.V.H.'s initial unwillingness to admit to this further offense. The State cites State v. Osborne, 2007 MT 217, ¶ 12, 339 Mont. 45, 167 P.3d 405, in which we distinguished Imlay and found revocation of probation was proper when “Osborne failed the program ......