DA 08-0231

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2009 MT 34N

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM J. SKIDMORE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Hill, Cause No. DC-06-060

Honorable David Rice, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Joslyn Hunt, Assistant

Appellate Defender Helena, Montana

For Appellee:

Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Tammy K. Plubell,

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Cyndee L. Peterson, Hill County Attorney, Havre, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: January 22, 2009

Decided: February 10, 2009

Filed:

__________________________________

Clerk

February 10 2009
2

Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

OperatingRules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandumdecision shall not be cited

as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk ofthe Supreme Court and

its case 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 After William J. Skidmore (Skidmore) violated conditions of a ten-year suspended

sentence to the Montana State Prison (MSP), the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Hill

County, revoked the suspended sentence and sentenced Skidmore to the Department of

Corrections (DOC) for ten years. Skidmore appealed to this Court, noting that § 46-18-

201(3)(d)(i), MCA, requires that “all but the first 5 years of the commitment to the

department of corrections must be suspended . . . .” We remanded for resentencing in accord

with the statute, whereupon the District Court sentenced Skidmore to MSP for ten years,

giving himcredit for over 400 daysserved. Skidmore now appealsthe legality ofthe prison

sentence, arguing that the District Court imposed a more burdensome sentence without new

“identifiable conduct” after the original sentence. See State v. Redfern, 2004 MT 277, ¶ 12,

323 Mont. 225, 99 P.3d 223. We affirm.

¶3 The District Court originally imposed a legal sentence of ten years to MSP,

suspended. After the State proved that Skidmore violated several conditions of the

suspended sentence, the District Court had authority to revoke the suspended sentence and
3

sentence Skidmore to MSP for up to ten years. See § 46-18-203(7)(a)(iii), MCA. Instead, at

Skidmore’srequest, the District Court sentenced Skidmore to DOC for ten years. However,

the District Court did not have authority to impose a ten-year sentence to DOC due to § 46-

18-201(3)(d)(i), MCA. On remand the District Court had authority to impose the original

legal sentence to MSP for ten years. We disagree with Skidmore’s contention that the

original sentence was the ten-year DOC sentence imposed after revocation of the ten-year

MSP suspended sentence. Unlike State v. Jackson, 2007 MT 186, 338 Mont. 344, 165 P.3d

321, in which the court originally sentenced Jackson to DOC for six years, here the original

sentence to MSP for ten years does not implicate § 46-18-201(3)(d)(i), MCA.

¶4 The District Court fully explained itsreasonsforsentencing Skidmore to MSP forten

years suspended at the original sentencing hearing, and ten years to MSP after revocation

and following appeal, in accord with Redfern, ¶ 12. The District Court identified objective

information regarding Skidmore’s identifiable conduct after the original sentence,

particularly Skidmore’s violations of his suspended sentence.

¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our

1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum

opinions. The issue is clearly controlled by settled Montana law.
4

¶6 The sentence is affirmed.

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

We concur:

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ JIM RICE

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS