Title: State v Randy Harris

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

FILED
September 18 2007
DA 06-0707 sm
INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,
2007 MT-240N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

RANDY ADAM HARRIS,
Defendant and Appellant.

 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADC-2002-87
Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Randy Adam Harris (Pro Se), Milltown, Montana

For Respondent:

Hon. Mike McGrath, Attomey General; Mark W. Mattioli, Assistant Attomey
General, Helena, Montana,

Leo J. Gallagher, County Attomey; Lisa Lecki, Deputy County Attorney,
Helena, Montana

FiLED Submited on Bi: Ange, 207

SEP 1 8 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007

Ed Smith

Fina he Buy coum

 
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.

{1 Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
fas precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and.

its

  

title, Supreme Court 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 Appellant Randy Adam Harris (Harris) appeals from an order of the First Judicial
District Court, Lewis and Clark County, denying his motion for resentencing. The District
Court sentenced Harris to consecutive commitments tothe Department of Corrections (DOC)
forthree different offenses, with five or fewer years commitment for each sentence. Harris
argues that these sentences violate guidelines provided in § 46-18-201, MCA. Harris argues
that § 46-18-201(3)(4)(i), MCA, limits DOC commitments to five year terms that may not
run consecutively. We affirm.

{B__ Section 46-18-201(3) -(3)(4)(i), MCA, provides that the district court may impose a
sentence of commitment to the DOC “[w]henever a person has been found guilty of an

offense ..., however, all but the fist [five] years of the commitment to the [DOC] must be

 

suspended. ...” Harris argues thatthe statute’s plain language indicates that the court erred
when it sentenced him to three consecutive commitments to the DOC, totaling more than five
years altogether. The State counters that the statute applies the five-year limitation to each.
separate offense, not multiple offenses. ‘The State points out that district courts have

authority and an obligation to impose consecutive DOC commitments for separate offenses.
State v. Seals, 2007 MT 71, § 14, 336 Mont. 416, 4 14, 156 P.3d 15, 4 14 (citing § 46-18-
401(4), MCA),

$4 We review a criminal sentence for legality only. In other words, we review whether
the sentence falls within statutory parameters. State v. Denham, 2005 MT 26, {5,326 Mont.
24,415, 107 P.3d 1263, 5. A question of statutory interpretation presents a question of law
that we review for correctness. Denham, 5.

45. We have determined to decide this ease pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(4) of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2008, that provide for memorandum opinions.
It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us that settled Montana law
clearly controls the legal issues and that the District Court correctly interpreted the law.

{6 Weaffirm,

Tustice

We Concur:

Koh, ae Tustice

Mh Libel igh?

Justices