No. 92-046 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

THE STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsDENNIS LEON VALCOURT, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, 

The Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Nicholas C. Jacques, Attorney at Law, Helena, 

Montana 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General, Kathy Seeley, 

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Mike McGrath, County Attorney, Carolyn Clemens, 

Deputy County Attorney, Helena, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: July 2, 1992 

Filed: 

Clerk 
chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Dennis Leon Valcourt was convicted of aggravated burglary. He 

appeals the sentence imposed upon him by the District Court of the 

~irst Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County. We affirm. 

The issue is whether the sentence imposed is improper. 

The charges against Valcourt arose out of a burglary and 

brutal beating of a seventy-six-year-old Helena woman in her home 

in July 1991. A jury convicted Valcourt of aggravated burglary. 

After a presentence investigation and a defense-requested 

chemical dependency evaluation, the District Court held a sentencing hearing at which testimony was heard on behalf of the State and 

by Valcourt himself. The court sentenced Valcourt to the maximum 

term of forty years imprisonment and denied him any eligibility for 

parole pursuant to 46-18-202(2), MCA. It gave the following 

reasons for the sentence it imposed: 

The reasons for the Court's sentence are that the 

defendant has a long criminal record. He has had 

numerous opportunities to rehabilitate himself, but has 

not taken advantage of them. The defendant's crimes have 

become more violent culminating in this crime. The 

victim/complainant is near death and has basically lost 

her life. After months of hospitalization on life 

support systems, she is required to live in a nursing 

home because of defendant's actions. The defendant is in 

severe stages of alcoholism. The defendant indicated he 

has no idea or reason why he committed this crime. There 

is no way to predict what the defendant may do next. The 

defendant's criminal history, this crime and his severe 

alcoholism shows that the defendant poses an extreme 

danger to society. 

Valcourt appealed to this Court. 
Valcourt~s argument on appeal is that the sentence imposed 

upon him violates constitutional and statutory principles of 

prevention, reformation, and rehabilitation. He cites provisions 

in 5 46-18-101, MCA, that the correctional policy of this State 

includes rehabilitation of the convicted. However, that statute 

also provides that the correctional policy of this State includes 

ltprotect[ing] society by preventing crime through punishment." 

In State v. Beach (1985), 217 Mont. 132, 705 P.2d 94, 

defendant Beach received a 100-year sentence, the maximum allowable, without eligibility for designation as a nondangerous 

offender or parole. He claimed that his sentence violated Article 

11, section 28 of the Montana Constitution and § 46-18-101, MCA. 

As does Valcourt, Beach argued that his sentence was not based upon 

principles of prevention, reformation, or rehabilitation, but that 

it was motivated by a desire for revenge for the victim's family. 

This Court upheld Beach's sentence, stating: 

We find no merit in defendant s argument. ~irst, ~rticle 

11, section 28, Mont. Const. allows a district court in 

its discretion to base a sentence upon the principle of 

prevention of future crimes. This includes the power to 

remove a person from society, as the District Court found 

necessary here. 

Secondly, the District Court's sentence was within the 

permissible statutory range, and, in the absence of clear 

abuse of discretion is properly reviewed by the Sentence 

Review Division. There was no clear abuse of discretion 

in this case and thus this is a matter for the Sentence 

Review Board. 

Beach, 705 P.2d at 107. 
Valcourt argues that his sentence violates the constitutional 

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. On that subject, 

this Court has stated: 

Ordinarily a sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment 

if it is within the maximum established by statute . . . and review properly lies with the Sentence Review Division. 

State v. Austad (1982), 197 Mont. 70, 100, 641 P.2d 1373, 1389. 

Valcourt states that, at the sentencing hearing, he displayed 

remorse and willingness to receive and complete chemical dependency 

treatment and that because he has never received professional help 

with his drug addiction, he is different from the defendants in the 

cases cited above. He asserts that by not allowing him the 

possibility of parole on a forty-year sentence, the court has 

effectively removed any incentive for him to use his time productively in prison by taking advantage of chemical dependency 

programs to prepare himself for an eventual return to society. 

Valcourtts arguments attempt to place a duty on the criminal 

justice system to force him into rehabilitation. The Legislature 

specifically found in § 46-18-101(2), MCA, that Itan individual is 

responsible for and must be held accountable for his actions." The 

record does not demonstrate whether chemical dependency treatment 

was available to Valcourt during his previous incarcerations. 

However, Valcourtts own testimony at the sentencing hearing demonstrates a denial of personal responsibility for his criminal 
history, either because "the other guy started itf1 or because of 

his use of alcohol or drugs. ~enial of parole need not prohibit 

Valcourt from participating in chemical dependency treatment for 

his own betterment. 

Valcourt also objects to a reference in the presentence 

investigation to a charge against him of sexual intercourse without 

consent. The District Court specifically noted at the sentencing 

hearing that it was disregarding any reference to or consideration 

of that charge, of which Valcourt was acquitted. 

The sentence imposed is within the statutory limits for the 

offense of which Valcourt was convicted. Affirmed. 

Chief Justice 

We concur: 
August 11, 1992 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

NICHOLAS C. JACQUES 

Attorney at Law 

310 Broadway 

Helena, MT 59601 

HON. MARC RACICOT, Attorney General 

Kathy Seeley, Assistant 

Justice Bldg. 

Helena, MT 59620 

MIKE MCGRATH, County Attorney 

Carolyn A. Clemens, Deputy 

Lewis & Clark County Courthouse 

228 Broadway 

Helena, MT 59601 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA/