State v. Stevens, 92-604
| Decision Date | 21 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-604,92-604 |
| Citation | 259 Mont. 114,854 P.2d 336 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Norman Lee STEVENS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Timothy J. Lape, Missoula, for defendant and appellant.
Joseph P. Mazurek, Atty. Gen., Barbara Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Robert L. Deschamps, III, Missoula County Atty., Betty Wing, Deputy Missoula County Atty., Missoula, for plaintiff and respondent.
Norman L. Stevens appeals from certain sentencing provisions contained in a judgment entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County. We reverse and remand.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court failed to properly sentence the defendant under applicable sentencing statutes.
Norman L. Stevens was charged in an October 8, 1992 Second Amended Information with two counts of felony sexual assault alleged to have been committed in July and August, 1991. He pled guilty. A presentence investigation report was ordered and received and a sentencing hearing was held. Thereafter, the District Court sentenced Stevens to a term of twenty years' imprisonment in the Montana State Prison on each count, the sentences to run concurrently; ten years of each sentence was suspended on specific conditions of probation. Judgment was entered on the conviction and sentence. Stevens appeals.
Did the District Court err in failing to properly sentence the defendant under applicable sentencing statutes?
Criminal sentencing alternatives are strictly matters of statute in Montana. Certain statutes also impose affirmative obligations on a sentencing court. Here, the parties agree that the District Court erred in failing to sentence Stevens in accordance with applicable statutes, namely §§ 46-18-201, 46-18-223, and 46-18-225, MCA.
It is undisputed that Stevens is a nonviolent felony offender pursuant to the statutory definition contained in § 46-18-104(3), MCA, of "a person who has entered a plea of guilty to a felony offense other than a crime of violence or who has been convicted of a felony offense other than a crime of violence." It also is clear that § 46-18-201(10), MCA, imposes certain obligations on a court sentencing such an offender:
In sentencing a nonviolent felony offender, the court shall first consider alternatives to imprisonment of the offender in the state prison, including placement of the offender in a community corrections facility or program. In considering alternatives to imprisonment, the court shall examine the sentencing criteria contained in 46-18-225. If the offender is subsequently sentenced to the state prison or a women's correctional facility, the court shall state its reasons why alternatives to imprisonment were not selected, based on the criteria...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Webb
...We agree with the State. ¶ 12 Criminal sentencing alternatives are strictly matters of statute in Montana. State v. Stevens (1993), 259 Mont. 114, 115, 854 P.2d 336, 337. In 1995, the Montana Legislature amended § 46-18-219, MCA, to set a minimum sentence of life in prison without parole fo......
-
State v. Swoboda
...are strictly a matter of statute in Montana. State v. LaMere (1995), 272 Mont. 355, 358, 900 P.2d 926, 928; State v. Stevens (1993), 259 Mont. 114, 115, 854 P.2d 336, 337. Therefore, our standard of review is whether the District Court correctly interpreted the applicable statutes. LaMere, ......
-
State v. Nelson
...(Mont.1995), --- Mont. ----, 902 P.2d 41, 52 St.Rep. 937; State v. LaMere (Mont.1995), 272 Mont. 355, 900 P.2d 926; State v. Stevens (1993), 259 Mont. 114, 854 P.2d 336. However, in these cases the defendants raised the issue of consideration of alternatives to incarceration before the dist......
-
State v. Sprinkle, 99-294.
...found at § 46-18-222, MCA, applied to Sprinkle. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 6 Sentencing is based on statutory law. See State v. Stevens (1993), 259 Mont. 114, 115, 854 P.2d 336, 337. We review the district court's application of the sentencing statutes to determine whether the district court was ......