State v. Skaw
| Docket Number | DA 21-0643 |
| Decision Date | 29 August 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 MT 164 N |
| Parties | STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JENNIFER RENEE SKAW, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Jeff N. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
William E. Fulbright, Ravalli County Attorney, Hamilton Montana
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Jennifer Renee Skaw (Skaw) appeals her sentence imposed upon revocation in the Twenty First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County. Although the judgment and sentences imposed pertain to two cases (Cause Nos. DC-20-108 and DC-20-171), Skaw appeals only the sentence imposed in Cause No. DC-20-108.
¶3 In August 2020, Skaw was living in a room above her father's garage and relied on her father for transportation and housing. She took her father's vehicle without asking and, when he confronted her, assaulted him. Skaw is a habitual traffic offender and not allowed to drive. During the investigation of the theft and assault, police believed Skaw had been using dangerous drugs and obtained a search warrant for her room above her father's garage. They seized drug paraphernalia, which was positive for methamphetamine. The following day, after speaking with her father who reported the presence of new items in the garage that were not present during the first search, police obtained a second search warrant and subsequently found scales; packaging supplies; five small containers of heroin; a grinder; and marijuana. They also seized a handwritten ledger of drug activity. Skaw was charged in Cause No. DC-20-108 with one count of felony distribution of dangerous drugs, two counts of felony possession of dangerous drugs, misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, and misdemeanor partner/family member assault.
¶4 Skaw was released on a $10,000 bail in October 2020. She was required to report to Pre-Trial Supervision (PTS), comply with the conditions of PTS, and wear a drug patch. Skaw failed to do anything, and the District Court issued an arrest warrant on October 22, 2020. Skaw was apprehended on November 7, 2020 and had in her possession methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Accordingly, in Cause No. DC-20-171, Skaw was charged with possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.
¶5 On November 30, 2020, the parties reached a global plea agreement under § 46-12-211(1)(c), MCA. Skaw agreed to plead guilty to one felony count of possessing heroin in Cause No. DC-20-108, in return for dismissal of the distribution and other charges. In Cause No. DC-20-171, Skaw agreed to plead guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. The parties agreed to jointly recommend a three-year deferred imposition of sentence for each felony and six months suspended for the misdemeanor. Skaw pled guilty on December 3, 2020, and sentencing was set for January 28, 2021. Skaw was released on her own recognizance and ordered to comply with PTS.
¶6 On December 4, 2020, Skaw enrolled in PTS but did not comply with any conditions and was considered to have absconded. Skaw failed to meet with her probation officer (PO) and did not complete the presentence investigation report (PSI). On December 10, 2020, the District Court issued warrants for Skaw's arrest. Skaw was located eleven days later and detained pending sentencing.
¶7 At sentencing, Skaw admitted to her addiction and expressed that she wanted drug treatment to be part of her sentence. The court agreed to follow the plea agreement and deferred imposition of sentence on the two felonies and imposed a six month suspended sentence for the misdemeanor. Skaw was ordered to report to her PO upon her release.
¶8 Skaw was released but never reported to her PO and gave her PO a false phone number. Inpatient treatment had been arranged at Rimrock, and Skaw failed to report for that as well. Numerous attempts were made to locate Skaw but she remained absent and did not report. On March 12, 2021, the State filed a petition to revoke Skaw's probation.
¶9 Skaw absconded for over six months and was not arrested until September 2021. She admitted to the allegations in the petition and her sentences were revoked on October 14, 2021. Skaw understood that she would not receive a completely suspended sentence and that she would be required to complete drug treatment. For each felony, the State recommended concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment and a suspended sixmonth term for the misdemeanor. Skaw asked the court to impose two concurrent five-year sentences but requested two of the years be suspended. The parties jointly agreed that Skaw was entitled to 110 days of credit for time served.
¶10 The District Court imposed a five-year commitment to the Department of Corrections (DOC) and a consecutive five-year suspended sentence. The court provided it had "zero confidence that five years is going to be enough, so that's why I'm going to run the two consecutive and not concurrent." The court noted that it was "not at all shocked" that Skaw was facing revocation proceedings based on the "numerous bail revocations [and] consistent failure to even be remotely successful[ly] supervised in the community." In its written judgement, the court explained:
The reasons for the sentence imposed is it is consistent with Defendant's behavior since receiving a deferred sentence from this [c]ourt. While the matter was pending originally the Defendant performed abysmally on release. Similarly, once sentenced, she was immediately noncompliant. The Defendant needs time in the custody of the Department of Corrections to address her chemical dependency issues as well as criminal thinking patterns. Additionally, the Defendant needs a probationary tail to assure that she does not return to using and dealing heroin.
¶11 This Court will review sentences that are not eligible for sentence review for both illegality and abuse of discretion. State v. Thibeault, 2021 MT 162, ¶ 7, 404 Mont. 476, 490 P.3d 105. Pursuant to § 46-18-903, MCA, a person sentenced to incarceration for one year or more may apply to the Sentence Review Division (SRD) for review of her sentence. Skaw has appealed only her suspended sentence imposed in Cause No. DC-20-108. Because her suspended sentence would not be eligible for consideration by SRD, we may review it for legality and abuse of discretion. Thibeault, ¶ 7. Skaw does not argue on appeal that her sentence was illegal; rather, Skaw argues that the District Court abused its discretion when it imposed a consecutive five year suspended sentence. "A district court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in a substantial injustice." State v. Doubek, 2021 MT 76, ¶ 9, 403 Mont. 514, 483 P.3d 1095. This Court reviews a district court's award of credit for time served de novo for legality. State v. Tippets, 2022 MT 81, ¶ 10, 408 Mont. 249, 509 P.3d 1.
¶12 Skaw contends the District Court abused its discretion by running Skaw's suspended sentence consecutively because Skaw can be successfully treated and her sobriety adequately monitored in much less time. Skaw...
To continue reading
Request your trial