State v. Petroff, 87-154
| Decision Date | 06 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-154,87-154 |
| Citation | 232 Mont. 20,757 P.2d 759,45 St.Rep. 833 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William PETROFF, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Carol Mitchell, Missoula, for defendant and appellant.
Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., Helena, Barbara Claassen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert L. Deschamps, III, Co. Atty., Missoula, Edward McClain, Deputy Co. Atty., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant (Petroff) appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County. We affirm.
The issues before the Court are:
1. Did the District Court properly delineate its reasons for imposing sentence?
2. Did the District Court improperly rely on erroneous information in sentencing Petroff?
On October 14, 1983, an information was filed charging Petroff with two counts of felony bad check writing. The first count charged the issuance of a $700 bad check; the second count charged the issuance of a $200 bad check as part of a common scheme. The record indicates that Petroff had written several other checks without sufficient funds to cover the drafts.
Following the District Court's rejection of the initial plea bargain, Petroff plead guilty on Count II of the information. Count I was dismissed on the request of the State.
The matter of sentencing came before the court on October 15, 1984. At that time, the District Court deferred imposition of sentence for a period of three years, provided that Petroff abide by certain conditions. The conditions imposed required, inter alia, that Petroff pay restitution in the amount of $2,561.35; that he abstain from maintaining a checking account; that he maintain contact with his Probation Officer; that he receive permission before changing his place of residence; and that he seek and maintain employment.
A petition requesting revocation of probation and imposition of sentence was filed on October 15, 1985. The petition alleged Petroff had failed to make restitution payments since May, 1985. The petition was subsequently dismissed upon payment of the arrearage.
A second petition requesting revocation of probation and imposition of sentence was filed on May 22, 1986. The petition alleged, and Petroff subsequently admitted, that he had failed to pay restitution; that he had failed to maintain contact with his Probation Officer; that he had moved without permission; and that he failed to maintain employment.
Following extradition from Georgia and admission of the probation violations, the District Court sentenced Petroff to ten years in prison, with three years suspended. Although the District Court did not state reasons for the sentence at that time, its judgment filed March 11, 1987, states the following:
The reasons for the judgment are as follows:
1. The recommendations of the Pre-Sentence Investigation;
2. The Defendant's prior criminal record.
Petroff moved for reconsideration of sentence based on alleged inaccuracies in the pre-sentence investigation. The motion for reconsideration was heard by the District Court on March 19, 1987. At that time, the following exchange occurred:
THE COURT: Well, this case has a fairly extensive history. It goes back to a plea bargain in 1984 and a Judgment from that date. Thereafter, a probation violation, one dated October 10, 1985, one dated October--or May 9, 1986. He's been given two chances before this.
What is going to change things at this time, Mr. Mansch?
I think my judgment is very fair ... and the judgment will stand.
The first specification of error concerns the District Court's alleged failure to state the reasons for the sentence imposed. Petroff argues, in effect, that the statement contained within the judgment, standing alone, is insufficient. We disagree.
Generally, the manner and extent of punishment is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court. However, in State v. Stumpf (1980), 187 Mont. 225...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Krantz
...informed of the reasons for his sentence. It also facilitates review by this Court and the Sentence Review Board. State v. Petroff (1988), 232 Mont. 20, 22, 757 P.2d 759, 761. We have generally upheld minimal statements of sentencing reasons. In State v. Petroff we held that, "[t]he recomme......
-
State v. McPherson, 88-450
...320, 322, 677 P.2d 587, 588, but it may also use its discretion in determining the manner and extent of punishment. State v. Petroff (Mont.1988), 757 P.2d 759, 45 St.Rep. 833. Defendant argues that because his probation officer recommended either a long suspended sentence with requirements ......
-
State v. Moses
...Cal.App.3d 1277, 1281, 253 Cal.Rptr. 130, 132 (1988); Wood v. State, 378 So.2d 110, 110-11 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980); State v. Petroff, 232 Mont. 20, 757 P.2d 759, 760 (1988). This kind of restriction, as imposed in this case, is far from the fine-tuning our law A second condition, that defend......
-
State v. Goulet
...record, the serious nature of the offense, and the defendant's consistent pattern of endangering other people. In State v. Petroff (1988), 232 Mont. 20, 757 P.2d 759, the reasons stated for the sentence were the recommendations of the presentence investigation and the defendant's prior crim......