O P 0 9

- 0 6 0 9



### I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F M O N T A N A

2 0 1 0 M T 4 3

J E R E L D R I

V E R

, C H A R L E S S M I T H

, A L A N C O M B S

, A B E L G O N Z A L E S

, M I C H A E L H A M M O N D

, M A R T I N S W A

N

, C L I F F O R D D E L G E R

, D A N I E L M I L E S

, T I M O T H Y D e H E R R E R A

, W I L L I A M P I P E R

, R O N A L D H U M M E L

, S T E V E N W H I T E C L O U S

, C L E V E S P A N G

, Z A N E W Y M O R E

, D A R I N G U C K E E N

, T O M M Y S E T H D E L L A R

,

P e t i t i o n e r s

,

v

.

T H E S E N T E N C E R E V I E W D I V I S I O N I N T H E

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F M O N T A N A

,

R e s p o n d e n

t

.

O R I G I N A L P R O C E E D I

N G : P e t i

t i o n f o r W r i t o f S u p e r v i s o r y C o n t r o l

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r P e t i t i o n e r s :

J o s l y n H u n t

, C h i e f A p p e l l a t e D e f

e n d e r ( a r g

u e d ) ;

E r i c O l s o n ( a r g

u e d )

, A s s i s t a n t P u b l i c D e f e n d e r ; H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

F o r R e s p o n d e

n t :

H o n

. S t e v e B u l l o c k

, M o n t a n a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; S h e r i K

. S p r i g g

, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r

n e y G e n e r a l ( a r g

u e d ) ; H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

D e n n i s P a x i

n o s

, Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t

y A t t o r n e y ; M a r k M u r p h y

, C h i e f

C r i m i n a l D e p u t y C o u

n t y A t t o r n e y ( a r g u e d ) ; B i l l i

n g s

, M o n t a n a

A r g u e d a n d S u b m i

t t e d : J a n u a r

y 2 7

, 2 0 1 0

D e c i d e d : M a r c h 9

, 2 0 1 0

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k March 9 20102

J u s t i c e J i m R i c e d e l i v

e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

.

¶ 1 P e t i t i o n e r s f

i l e d a m o t i o n w i t h t h e S e n t e n c e R e v i e w D i v i s i o n ( D i v i s i o n ) s e e k i n g

c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e s t a n d a r

d o f r e v i e w t o b e a p p l i e d t o c r i m i n a l s e n t e n c e s s u b m

i t t e d t o t h e

D i v i s i o n f

o r r e v i e w

. T h e D i v i s i o n d e n i e d t h e P e t i t i o n e r s ’ m o t i o n

, h o l d i n g t h a t t h e

“ c l e a r l y i n a d e q u a t e o r e x c e s s i v e ” s t a n d a r d u n d e r R u l e 1 7

, M o n t

. S e n t

. R e v

. D i v

. ,

c o r r e c t l y s t a

t e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w

. P e t i t i o n e r s t h e n f i l e d a P e t i t i o n f

o r

W r i t o f S u p e r v i s o r y C o n t r o l w i t h t h i s C o u r t

, a s s e r t i n g t h e D i v i s i o n w a s p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r

a m i s t a k e o f l a w

.

¶ 2 W e s t a t e t h e i s s u e s a s f o l l o w s :

¶ 3 1. Is the exercise of s upervisory c ontrol appropriate i n this matter ?

¶ 4 2

. D i d t h e D i v i s i o n e r r b y denying Petitioners’ motion to clarify the standard of

review applicable to sentences reviewed by the Division?

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶ 5 P e t i t i o n e r s a r e c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t s w

h o h a v e p e t i t i o n e d o r i n t e n d t o p e t i t i o n t h e

D i v i s i o n f

o r r e v i e w o f t h e i r s e n t e n c e s

. O n J a n u a r y 9

, 2 0 0 9

, P e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d a m o t i o n

b e f o r e t h e D i v

i s i o n r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n c l a r i f

y t h e s t a n d a r d i t a

p p l i e s t o

s e n t e n c e s s u b m

i t t e d f o r r e v i e w

. P e t i t i o n e r s a r g u e d t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n s h o u l d d e c l a r e t h a t

the “clearly inadequate or excessive” standard in Rule 17 of the D ivision ’s Rules “ i s n o t

the applicable standard.” Instead

, t h e m o t i o n a s k e d t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n “ r e v i e w i t s c a s e s f

o r

e q u i t y

. ” O n M a y 1 2

, 2 0 0 9

, t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f

i l e d a r e s p o n s e o b

j e c t i n g t o

P e t i t i o n e r ’ s m o t i o n a n d a r g u i n g i n s u p p o r t o f t h e s t a n d a r d s t a t e d i n R

u l e 1 7

.3

¶ 6 T h e D i v i s i o n d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

, r e a f f i r m i n g R u l e 1 7 a s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d

o f r e v i e w a n d r e

j e c t i n g P e t i t i o n e r s ’ a r g

u m e n t t h a t t h e i r s e n t e

n c e s s h o u l d b e r e v

i e w e d f o r

e q u i t y

. I

n i t s o r d e r

, t h e D i v i s i o n a l s o s t a t e d t h a t i t s “ r u l e s a n d p r a c t i c e s

. . . h a v e

c o n s i d e r e d s e n t e n c e s t o b e u n j u s t o r i n e q u i t a

b l e i f t h e y a r e s o g

r e a t l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a

t e t o

t h e c r i m e a s t o c o n s t i t

u t e c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t

. ”

¶ 7 Petitioners filed a P etition for W rit of S upe rvisory C ontrol with this Court, a r g u i n g

t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n e r r e d i n d e

n y i n g i t s m o t i o n a n d w a s t h u s p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r a m i s t a k e o f

l a w

. T h e S t a t e f

i l e d i t s r e s p o n s e

, a g

r e e i n g t h a t t h i s w a s a n a p p r o p r i a t e c a s e f o r t h e

e x e r c i s e o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l b y t h i s C o u r t

.

JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8 W e m a y a s s u m e s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l

, a s a u

t h o r i z e d b y A

r t i c l e V I I

, S e c t i o n 2 ( 2 ) o f

t h e M o n t a n a C o n s t i t u

t i o n a n d M

. R

. A

p p

. P

. 1 4 ( 3 ) ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( f

o r m e r M

. R

. A

p p

. P

. 1 7 )

, t o

control the course of litigation where the district court “ i s p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r a m i s t a k e o f

law and is causing a gross injustice

. ” M

. R

. A p p

. P

. 1 4 ( 3 ) ( a ) ; S

t a t e v

. T h i r t e e n t h J

u d

.

Dist. Ct.

, 2 0 0 9 M T 1 6 3

, ¶ 1 3

, 3 5 0 M o n t

. 4 6 5

, 2 0 8 P

. 3 d 4 0 8 ; s e e S p o r t s m e n f o r I

- 1 4 3 v

.

Mont. Fifteen th Jud

. Dist

. Ct

. , 2 0 0 2 M T 1 8

, ¶ 4

, 3 0 8 M o n t

. 1 8 9

, 4 0 P

. 3 d 4 0 0 ( c i t i n g P a r k

v. Mont. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct.

, 1 9 9 8 M T 1 6 4

, ¶ 1 3

, 2 8 9 M o n t

. 3 6 7

, 9 6 1 P

. 2 d 1 2 6 7 )

. O u r

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w

h e t h e r s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i s a p p r o p r i a t e i s a c a s e

- b y

- c a s e d e c i s i o n

,

b a s e d o n t h e p r e s e n c e o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d a p a r t i c u l a r n e e d t o p r e v e n t a n

i n j u s t i c e f r o m o c c u r r i n g

. Sportsmen for I

- 143

, ¶ 4 ( c i t i n g Park

, ¶ 1 3 )

.4

¶ 9 T h e p r o p e r b a s i s b y w h i c h t h i s C o u r t m a y r e v i e w a c h a l l e n g e t o a d e c i s i o n o f t h e

S e n t e n c e R e v

i e w D i v i s i o n i s t h r o u g

h a p e t i t i o n f

o r e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e l i e f

. R a n t a v

. S t a t e

,

1 9 9 8 M T 9 5

, ¶ 1 2

, 2 8 8 M o n t

. 3 9 1

, 9 5 8 P

. 2 d 6 7 0

. “ B e c a u s e t h e S e

n t e n c e R e v

i e w

D i v i s i o n f

u n c t i o n s a s a n a r m o f t h i s C o u r t

, t h i s C o u r t h a s t h e s u p e r v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y t o

e n s u r e t h a t i t c o m

p l i e s w i t h s t a t u t e s a n d r u l e s g o v e r n i n g i t s o p e r a t i o n s a s w e l l a s t h e

M o n t a n a C o n s t i t u

t i o n a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u

t i o n

. ” R a n t a

, ¶ 1 2 ( c i t i n g § 4 6

- 1 8

-

9 0 1 ( 1 )

, M C A ; M o n

t

. C o n s t

. a r t

. V I I

, § 2 )

. P u r s u a n t t o M

. R

. A p p

. P

. 1 4 ( 1 )

, t

h i s C o u r t

h a s t h e p o w e r t o “

h e a r a n d d e t e r m

i n e s u c h o r i g i n a l a n d r e m e d i a l w r i t s a s m a y b e

n e c e s s a r y o r p r o p e r t o t h e c o m p l e t e e x e r c i s e o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n

. ” S e e R a n t a

, ¶ 1 2

.

D I S C U S S I O N

¶ 1 0 1

. I

s t h e e x e r c i s e o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h i s m a t t e r ?

¶ 1 1 P e t i t i o n e r s c o n t e

n d t h a t s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o r r e c t t h e D i v i s i o n ’ s

m i s t a k e o f l a w o f a p p l y i n g t h e “ c l e a r l y i n a d e q u a

t e o r e x c e s s i v e ” s t a n d a r d t o t h e r e v i e w o f

s e n t e n c e s b e f

o r e i t

. T h e S t a

t e a g r e e s t h a t s u p e r v

i s o r y c o n t r o l i s a p p r

o p r i a t e

, b u t r e q u e s t s

t h a t w e d o s o t o a f

f i r m t h a t t h e “ c l e a r l y i n a d e q u a t e o r e x c e s s i v

e ” s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s

a p p r o p r i a t e

.

¶ 1 2 W e c a n e x e r c i s e s u p e r v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n

, a s a n a r m o f

t h i s C o u r t

, c o m

p l i e s w i t h t

h e s t a t u t e s a n d r

u l e s g o v e r n i n g i t s o p e r a t i o n s

, a s w e l l a s t h e

M o n t a n a C o n s t i t

u t i o n a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u

t i o n

. J o r d a n v

. S t a t e

, 2 0 0 8 M T 3 3 4

,

¶ 2 2

, 3 4 6 M o n t

. 1 9 3

, 1 9 4 P

. 3 d 6 5 7 ( q u o t i n g R a n t a

, ¶ 1 2 )

. B e c a u s e w e h a v e e x c l u s i v e

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v

i e w t h e D i v i s i o n ’ s c o m

p l i a n c e w i t h g

o v e r n i n g s t a t u t e s a n d r

u l e s

, a s5

w e l l a s s t a t e a

n d f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u

t i o n a l m a n d a t e s

, Jordan

, ¶ 2 2 ( c i t i n g Ranta

, ¶ 1 2 )

, w e

d e e m t h i s c a s e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e e x e r c i s e o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l t o r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e

r a i s e d b y t h e p e t i t i o n

.

¶ 1 3 2

. D i

d t h e Division err by denying Petitioners’ motion to clarify the standard of

r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o s e n t e n c e s r e v i e w e

d b y t h e D i v i s i o n ?

¶ 1 4 I n i t o r d e r

, t

h e D i v i s i o n a g

r e e d w i t h P e t i t i o n e r s ’ o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e

d i d n o t a r

t i c u l a t e a s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t e s c r e a t i n g a n d g

o v e r n i n g t h e

S e n t e n c e R e v i e w D i v i s i o n

. S e e § § 4 6

- 1 8

- 9 0 1 t h r o u g h 9 0 5

, M C A ( 2 0 0 7 )

. H o w e v e r

,

n o t i n g t h a t t

h e s t a t u t e s g r a n t e d i t a u t h o r i t y t o “ a d o p t a n y r u l e s t h a t w i l l e x

p e d i t e i t s

r e v i e w o f s e n t e n c e s

, ” § 4 6

- 1 8

- 9 0 1 ( 4 )

, M C A

, t h e D i v i s i o n c i t e d i t s p u r p o s e a n d s t a n d a r d s

f o r r e v i e w o f c r i m i n a l s e n t e n c e s a s s e t f o r t h i n R u l e s 1 6 a n d 1 7

. T h e D i v i s i o n r e j e c t e d

P e t i t i o n e r s ’ a s s e r t i o n t h a

t s e n t e n c e s s h o u l d b e r e v

i e w e d f o r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n o r e q u i t y

,

a n d a f f i r m e d t h e s t a n d a r d s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 1 7

, t h a t s e n t e n c e s “ w i l l n o t b e r e d

u c e d o r

i n c r e a s e d u n l e s s i t i s d e e m e d c l e a r l y i n a d e q u a t e o r e x c e s s i v

e

. ” A c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t

s e n t e n c e s m a y b e c h a l l e n g e d a s “ u n j u s t o r i n e q u i t a b l e

, ” t h e D i v i s i o n a p p e a r e d t o d e f i n e

t h i s r e v i e w n a r r o w l y b y h o l d i n g t h a t “ [ t ] h e r u l e s a n d p r a c t i c e s o f t h i s d i v i s i o n h a v e

c o n s i d e r e d s e n t e n c e s t o b e u n j u s t o r i n e q u i t a

b l e i f t h e y a r e s o g

r e a t l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a

t e t o

t h e c r i m e a s t o c o n s t i t u t e c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t

. ” T h e D i v i s i o n s t a t e d t h a t t h i s

C o u r t “ a p p r

o v e d s u c h a n a l y s i s i n I

n r e J o n e s

, ” 1 7 6 M o n

t

. 4 1 2

, 5 8 7 P

. 2 d 1 1 5 0 ( 1 9 7 8 )

.

¶ 1 5 P e t i t i o n e r s c o n t e

n d t h a t t h e “ c l e a r l y i n a d e q

u a t e o r e x c e s s i v e ” s t a n d a r d o f R u l e 1 7

“ u n n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t s t h e D i v i s i o n ’ s r e v i e w i n g p o w e r ” a n d c o n t r a d i c t s s t a t e m e n t s m a d e

b y t h i s C o u r t t h a

t t h e D i v i s i o n “ w i l l r e v i e w s e n t e n c e s f o r e q u i t y

. ” S e e S t a t e v

. H e r d

,6

2 0 0 4 M T 8 5

, ¶ 2 2

, 3 2 0 M o n t

. 4 9 0

, 8 7 P

. 3 d 1 0 1 7

. T h e y n o t e t h a t t h i s s t a n d a r d i s n o t

s t a t e d w i t h i n t

h e D i v i s i o n ’ s s t a t u t o r y a u t

h o r i z a t i o n

. D u r i n g o r a l a r g u m e n t

, P e t i t i o n e r s

focused the i r a r g

u m e n t o n t h e l a n g

u a g e w i t h i n t h e D i v i s i o n ’ s o r d e r w h i c h a p p e a r e d t o

d e f i n e i n e q u i t a b l e s e n t e n c e s a s o n l y t h o s e w h i c h c o n s t i t

u t e c r u e l a n d u

n u s u a l

p u n i s h m e n t

. P e t i t i o n e r s a r g u e t h a t t h e D i v

i s i o n s h o u l d r e v i e w f

o r e q u i t y “ i n t h e b r o a d e s t

sense of the w o r d

, s o t h e D i v i s i o n m a y r e v i e w e v

e r y t h i n g e n c o m

p a s s i n g a d e f

e n d a n t ’ s

s e n t e n c e

. ”

¶ 1 6 T h e S t a t e

, d u r i n g a r g u m e n t

, a g

r e e d t h a t t h e l a

n g u a g e w i t h i n t h e D i v i s i o n ’ s o r d e r

p u r p o r t i n g t o l i m

i t r e v i e w t o s e n t e

n c e s c o n s t i t

u t i n g c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t w a s

u n d u l y n a r r o w

. H o w e v

e r

, t h e S t a t e a r g

u e s t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n ’ s a d o p t i o n o f t h e “ c l e a r l y

i n a d e q u a t e o r e x c e s s i v e ” s t a n d a r d u n d e r R u l e 1 7

, p u r s u a

n t t o i t s s t a t u

t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o

p r o m u l g a t e r u l e s

, w a s a n a p p r o p r i a t e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s t a t

u t o r y d i r e c t i v e t h a t “ [ t ] h e

s e n t e n c e i m

p o s e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t

. ” S e c t i o n 4 6

- 1 8

- 9 0 4 ( 3 )

,

M C A

. T h e S t a t e a c k

n o w l e d g e s t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n m a y t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t “ e q u i t y i s s u e s ”

a n d “ c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f j u s t i c e

, ” b u t t h a t i t s p r i m a r y r o l e i s t h e r e d u c t i o n o f d i s p a r i t i e s i n

p r i s o n e r s e n t e n c i n g

, n o t i n g R u l e 1 6 ’ s s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e o f t h e D i v i s i o n

“ i s t o p r o v

i d e u n i f o r m i t y i n s e n t e n c i n g

. ”

¶ 1 7 M o n t a

n a l a w p r o v

i d e s f o r g e n e r a l i z e d

, i n d i s c r i m i n a t e s e n t e n c i n g o f c r i m i n a l

d e f e n d a n t s

, w i t h t e r m r a n g e s a n d b r o a

d a u t h o r i t y f o r s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t s t o i m

p o s e

c o n d i t i o n s

. “ O n e o f t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e 1 9 7 3 M o n t a n a C r i m i n a l C o d e w a s t o v

e s t w i d e

s e n t e n c i n g d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e t r i a l j u d g e w h o i s f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e c h a r a c t e r a n d p a s t r e c o r d7

of the defendant, and with the cir cumstances of the particular case. ” S t a t e v

. M a l d o n a d o

,

176 Mont. 322, 334, 578 P.2d 296, 303 (1978)

. “ [ I ] n i m p o s i n g s e n t e n c e

, t h e s e n t e n c i n g

c o u r t m a y c o n s i d e r a n y r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o t h e n a t u r e a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e

crime, the character of the defendant, the defenda n t ’ s b a c k g r o u n d h i s t o r y

, m e n t a l a n d

physical condition, and any evidence the court considers to have probative force. ” S t a t e

v

. C o l l i e r

, 2 7 7 M o n t

. 4 6

, 6 3

, 9 1 9 P

. 2 d 3 7 6

, 3 8 7 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. K l i p p e n s t e i n

, 2 3 9

Mont. 42, 45, 778 P.2d 892, 894 (1989) )

. “ T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s g i v e n a w i d e s c o p e o f

inquiry in sentencing. ” K l i p p e n s t e i n

, 2 3 9 M o n t

. a t 4 5

, 7 7 8 P

. 2 d a t 8 9 4 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

.

D

. B

. S

. , 2 1 6 M o n t

. 2 3 4

, 2 4 7

- 4 8

, 7 0 0 P

. 2 d 6 3 0

, 6 3 9

- 4 0 ( 1 9 8 5 ) )

.

¶ 1 8 T h e L e g i s l a t u r e “ v o l u n t a r i l y c r e a t e d ” t

h e D i v i s i o n

, S t

a t e e x r e l

. H o l t v

. D i s t

. C t

. ,

2 0 0 0 M T 1 4 2

, ¶ 1 2

, 3 0 0 M o n t

. 3 5

, 3 P

. 3 d 6 0 8

, t o s e r v

e e s s e n t i a l l y a s a s a f

e t y n e t f o r o u r

i n d i s c r i m i n a t e s e n t e n c i n g s y s t e m

, p r o v i d i n g a d d i t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n f o r b o t h t h e p u

b l i c a n d

f o r t h e i n d i v

i d u a l d e f e n d a n t

. T h e D i v

i s i o n w a s c r e a t e d t o r e v i e w s e n t e n c e s c h a l l e n g e d a s

b e i n g u n j u s t o r i n e q u i t a b l e a

n d “ w a s c h a r g

e d w i t h d e t e r m

i n i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f

c r i m i n a l s e n t e n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l o f f e n d e r a n d a p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n s e

. ”

J o r d a n

, ¶ 1 8 ( c i t a

t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. T o a s s i s t i n a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h i s p u r

p o s e

, t h e L e g

i s l a t u r e

g r a n t e d t h e D i v

i s i o n a u t h o r i t y t o “ a d o p t a n y r u l e s t h a t w i l l e x

p e d i t e i t s r e v i e w o f

s e n t e n c e s

. ” S e c t i o n 4 6

- 1 8

- 9 0 1 ( 4 )

, M C A ; H o l t

, ¶ 6

.

¶ 1 9 R u l e 1 6

, M o n

t

. S e n t

. R e v

. D i v

. , p r o v

i d e s t h a t “ [ t ] h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e o f t h e

S e n t e n c e R e v

i e w D i v i s i o n i s t o p r o v

i d e f o r u n i f o r m i t y i n s e n t e n c i n g w

h e n a p p r o p r i a t e ”

a n d t o “ e n s u r e t h a

t t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e p u b l i c a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t a r e a

d e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s e d8

by the sentence. ” R e g

a r d i n g t h e p u b l i c ’ s i n t e r e s t s

, R u l e 1 6 p r o v

i d e s t h e D i v

i s i o n s h a l l

consider the State’s correctional policy “to protect society by preventing crime

, ” w i l l

“hold an individual responsible and accountable for his/her actions

, ” a n d r e m o v e

“dangerous and habitual offenders from socie ty.” Regarding the d e f e n d a n t ’ s i n t e r e s t s

,

the rule instructs that t h e D i v i s i o n “ s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t p e r s o n s c o n v

i c t e d o f c r i m e a r e d e a l t

w i t h i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

, c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, n e e d s a n d

potentialities

, ” and shall consider “ w h e t h e r t h e o f

f e n d e r c o u l d h a v

e b e e n d e a l t w i t h

adequately by probation, suspended sentence or fine

. . . . ” T h e r u l e d i r e c t s t h a t t

h e

D i v i s i o n ’ s r e v i e w c o n s i d e r v a r i o u s f a c t o r s

, i n c l u d i n g t h e c r i m e c o m m i t t e d

, t h e o f f e n d e r ’ s

p r o s p e c t o f r e h a b i l i t a t i o n

, t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c r i m e

, a n d t h e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y o f t h e

o f f e n d e r

. R

u l e 1 5 r e q u i r e s t h e D i v i s i o n t o r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n t

h e c a s e

, i n c l u d i n g

p l e a d i n g s

, p l e a a g

r e e m e n t s

, p r e

- s e n t e n c e r e p o r t s

, j u d g m e n t s a n d “ [ o ] t h e r d o c u m e n t s

r e l i e d on by the sentencin g judge.” Th e D i v i s i o n ’ s r e v i e w i s p r o c e d u r a l l y g o v e r n e d b y

Rule 14 w

h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e D i v i s i o n “ s h a l l b e a s i n f o r m a l a s

p o s s i b l e t o a

l l o w f u l l e x p r e s s i o n b y a l l p a r t i e s a n d t h e i r a t t o r n e y s

. T h e R

u l e s o f E v

i d e n c e

will serve as a g

uide but are n o t b i n d i n g i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g

. ”

¶ 2 0 T h e s e r

u l e s t o g e t h e r p r o v

i d e f o r a n a p p r

o p r i a t e l y b r

o a d r e v i e w o f t h e t o t a

l i t y o f

t h e f a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f e a c h c a s e

, w h i c h w e h a v

e p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d a s a r e v i e w

“ f o r e q u i t y

, d i s p a r i t y

, o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f j u s t i c e b y t h e S e n t e n c e R e v i e w B o a r d

. ” S t a t e

v

. S t e p h e n s

, 1 9 8 M o n

t

. 1 4 0

, 1 4 5

, 6 4 5 P

. 2 d 3 8 7

, 3 9 0

- 9 1 ( 1 9 8 2 )

. T h e D i v i s i o n ’ s

c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s n o t c a b i n e d b y r i g i d g u i d e l i n e s

, a n d a d e f

e n d a n t c a n r i g

h t l y a p p e a l t o t

h e9

D i v i s i o n ’ s j u d g

e s o n e q u i t a b l e g

r o u n d s s u c h a s f

a i r n e s s

, c o n s i s t e n c y a n d u n i f o r m i t y

, a s

c a n t h e S t a t e

.

¶ 2 1 S e c t i o n 4 6

- 1 8

- 9 0 4 ( 3 )

, M C A

, p r o v i d e s t h a t “ [ t ] h e s e n t e

n c e i m p o s e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t

. ” T h u s

, a f t e r h e a r i n g e v i d e n c e a n d a r g u m e n t

, t h e D i v i s i o n

m u s t d e c i d e w

h e t h e r t h i s p r e s u m

p t i o n h a s b e e n o v

e r c o m e a n d a n e w s e n t e n c e s h o u l d b e

i m p o s e d

, “ i n c l u d i n g a d e c r e a s e o r i n c r e a s e i n t h e p e n a l t y

. ” S e c t i o n 4 6

- 1 8

- 9 0 4 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i i )

,

M C A

. T h e D i v i s i o n d o e s s o b y d e t e r m i n i n g

, a f t e r i t s b r o a d r e v i e w

, w

h e t h e r t h e o r i g

i n a l

s e n t e n c e w a s “ c l e a r l y i n a d e q u a t e o r e x c e s s i v e ” u n d e r R u l e 1 7

. A l t

h o u g h P e t i t i o n e r s

c r i t i c i z e t h i s s t a n d a r d

, t h e y c o n c e d e d d u r i n g a r g u m e n t t h a t R u l e 1 7 i s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h t h e s t a t u

t e s g o v e r n i n g t h e D i v i s i o n

, a n d w e c a n n o t c o n c l u d e o t h e r w i s e

. F u r t h e r

, w e

c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t

h a t t h e R u l e e x c e e d s t

h e D i v i s i o n ’ s a u t h o r i t y

. S i m

p l e “ e q u i t y ” c a n

n o t

s e r v e a s t h e s t a n d a r

d o f r e v i e w

, a s t h e L e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t i n t e n d f o r t h e D i v

i s i o n t o

e n g a g e i n d e n o v

o s e n t e n c i n g

. I

n d e e d

, w e h a v

e h e l d t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n “ u n d e r M o n

t a n a ’ s

p r o c e d u r e m a y n o t s u b s t i t u

t e i t s d i s c r e t i o n f

o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s

. I

n s t e a d

, t h e s e n t e n c e

i m p o s e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t

. . . . ” R a n t a

, ¶ 2 3 ( c i t i n g § 4 6

- 1 8

-

9 0 4 ( 3 )

, M C A

, a n d R

u l e 1 7

, M o n

t

. S e n t

. R e v

. D i v

. )

. F u r t h e r

, t

h e D i v i s i o n ’ s i n t e r

p r e t a t i o n

o f a p p l i c a b l e g

o v e r n i n g s t a t u t e s “ i s e n t i t l e d t o d e f e r e n c e a n d r e s p e c t b e c a

u s e t h e D i v

i s i o n

i s c h a r g e d b y t h e l e g

i s l a t u r e w i t h t h e a

d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f M o n t a n a ’ s s e n t e n c e r e v i e w

s t a t u t e s

. ” H

o l t

, ¶ 1 0 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. M i d l a n d M a t e r i a l s C o

. , 2 0 4 M o n

t

. 6 5

, 7 0

, 6 6 2 P

. 2 d

1 3 2 2

, 1 3 2 5 ( 1 9 8 3 ) )

. T h e r e f o r e

, w e c o n c l u d e R

u l e 1 7 i s a v

a l i d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t

h e

D i v i s i o n ’ s s t a t u t o r y d

u t y

.1 0

¶ 2 2 T h i s a n a l y s i s o f t h e D i v i s i o n ’ s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w u n d e r m

i n e s t h e s t a t e m e n t i n t

h e

D i v i s i o n ’ s o r d e r t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t s e n t e n c e s w o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d u n j u s t o r i n e q u i t a b l e “ i f

t h e y a r e s o g

r e a t l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e c r i m e a s t o c o n s t i t u t e c r u e l a n d u

n u s u a l

p u n i s h m e n t

, ” c i t i n g J

o n e s

. I n J o n e s

, w e m e r e l y m e n t i o n e d t h e D i v i s i o n ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n

t o l e a v e J o n e s ’ s s e n t e n c e u n c h a n g e d a s o n e r e a s o n w e w e r e r e j e c t i n g J o n e s ’ s c r

u e l a n d

u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t c l a i m

. J

o n e s

, 1 7 6 M o n

t

. a t 4 2 0

, 5 7 8 P

. 2 d a

t 1 1 5 4

- 5 5

. W e w e r e n o t

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s c o p e o f t h e D i v i s i o n ’ s r e v i e w w a s l i m i t e d t o s e n t e n c e s w h i c h w e r e

c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l

, a s t h a t i s c e r t a i n l y i n c o r r e c t

. T o t h a t e x t e n t

, t h e n

, t h e D i v i s i o n ’ s o r d e r

i s r e v e r s e d

.

¶ 2 3 A c c o r d i n g

l y

, w e a c c e p t s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i n t h i s m a t t e r

, a n d c o r r e c t t h e

D i v i s i o n ’ s o r d e r a s s t a t e d h e r e i n

.

/ S / J I M R I C E

W e c o n c u r :

/ S / M I K E M c G R A T H

/ S / M I C H A E L E W H E A T

/ S / P A T R I C I A O

. C O T T E R

/ S / W

. W I L L I

A M L E A P H A R T

/ S / B R I A N M O R R I S

Justice James C. Nelson, dissenting.

¶ 2 4 I cannot understand what it is that the Court is holding in its Opinion. I do not

a g r e e t h a t t h e “ c l e a r l y i n a d e q u a

t e o r e x c e s s i v

e ” s t a n d a r d u s e d b y t h e S e n t e n c e R e v

i e w

D i v i s i o n ( S R D ) c o m

p l i e s w i t h t h e c r i t e r i a t h a t w e a p p e a r n o m

i n a l l y t o m a n d a

t e i n1 1

t o d a y ’ s O p i n i o n f

o r s e n t e n c e r e v i e w

. A n d I a m n o t s a t i s f

i e d

, i n a n y e v

e n t

, t h a t a n y

s t a n d a r d w

h i c h e i t h e r t

h i s C o u r t o r S R D a d o p t s m a k e s a n y s e n s e i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a

readily accessible database of statewide sentencing statistics.

¶ 2 5 To begin with, it is not clear what standard, exactly, we are adopting for sentence

review. On one hand, the Court reverses SRD’s order that sentences would be considered

un just or inequitable “if they are so greatly disproportionate to the crime as to constitute

c r u e l a n d u n u s u a

l p u n i s h m e n t

. ” See Opinion, ¶ 2 2

. I a g r e e w i t h t h e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n

t h i s r e g a r d a n d w i t h t h e l i m

i t a t i o n t h e C o u r t p l a c e s o n t h e l a n g u a g e o f I n r e J o n e s

, 176

Mont. 412, 578 P.2d 1150 ( 1978 ), from which SRD adopted this standard. Opinion, ¶ 22.

Furthermore, I do not take issue with the Court’s statements in ¶ 17 regarding the broad

a u t h o r i t y a n d d i s c r e t i o n g r a n t e d b y s t a t u

t e t o d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i n s e n t e n c i n g m a t t e r s

. 1 N o r

d o I d i s a g

r e e t h a t S R D w a s c r e a t e d t o s e r v e a s a “ s a f

e t y n e t ” a g

a i n s t “ u n j u s t ” a n d

“ i n e q u i t a b l e ” s e n t e n c e s i m p o s e d u p o n i n d i v i d u a l o f f e n d e r s f o r p a r t i c u l a r o f

f e n s e s

.

O p i n i o n

, ¶ 1 8

. F i n a l l y

, I a g r e e t h a t S R D ’ s r e v i e w “ i s n o t c a b i n e d b y r i g i d g u i d e l i n e s ”

a n d t h a t S R D m u s t c o n s i d e r a d e f

e n d a n t ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o r s e n t e n c e r e v i e w o n “ e q

u i t a b l e

g r ounds” such as “fairness, consistency and uniformity.” Opinion, ¶ 20.

1 Notwithstanding, however, that this Court seems to be increasingly content

— or perhaps determined

— to chip away at this broad sentencing discretion by turning some

sentencing decisions o v

e r t o t h e c o r r e c t i o n a

l s y s t e m ’ s b u r e a u c r a c y

. S e e e

. g

. S t a t e v

. H e r n a n d e z

, 2009 MT 341 , 353 Mont. 111, 220 P.3d 25 (upholding the imposition of the

Department of Corrections’ “standard conditions of probation ” i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e n e x

u s

r e q u i r e m e n t t h i s C o u r t a r t i c u l a t e d i n S t a t e v

. A s h b

y

, 2 0 0 8 M T 8 3

, 3 4 2 M o n t

. 1 8 7

, 1 7 9

P

. 3 d 1 1 6 4

, a n d r e a f

f i r m e d i n S t a t e v

. S t i l e

s

, 2 0 0 8 M T 3 9 0

, 3 4 7 M o n t

. 9 5

, 1 9 7 P

. 3 d 9 6 6 )

.1 2

¶ 2 6 Yet, on the other hand, and in the face of having said all of the foregoin g , the

Court summarily concludes that since the sentence imposed by the district court is

presumed correct, SRD’s “clearly inadequate or excessive” standard is “a valid

application of [SRD’s] statutory duty” to review petitions for sentence review. Opinio n,

¶ 21. I do not agree that the rigid “clearly inadequate or excessive” standard incorporates

t h e n o t i o n s o f “ f

a i r n e s s ” a n d “ e q u i t y ” t h a t t h e C o u r t a

p p e a r s n o m

i n a l l y t o m a n d a t e e a r l i e r

i n i t s O p i n i o n

, a s n o t e d a b o v e

. T h u s

, i n h o l d i n g a s i t d o e s

, t h e C o u r t i m p l i c i t l y o v

e r r u l e s

( u n f o r t u n a t e l y

, w i t h o u

t c i t a t i o n t o t h e m a n y c a s e s a f

f e c t e d

, s e e ¶ 3 4 & n

. 2

, i n f r a ) our

well

- established and extensive caselaw that, until today, required SRD to review

sentences for “equity.”

¶ 2 7 So, where does that leave the law? Ap parently the “primary objective” of SRD is

to ensure “uniformity in sentencing.” Opinion, ¶ 19. But SRD may also (as the State

acknowledges) “take into account ‘equity issues’ and ‘considerations of justice,’ ”

Opinion, ¶¶ 16, 20, including “fairness” an d “consistency,” Opinion, ¶ 20. Yet, under

SRD’s “clearly inadequate or excessive” standard, this “primary objective” cannot be

achieved through review for simple “equity,” Opinion, ¶ 21, even though SRD may

consider equity issues, Opinion, ¶¶ 16, 20.

¶ 2 8 T h e r e a r e t w o p r

o b l e m s h e r e

. F i r s t

, t h e p a r t i e s

, a n d n o w t

h i s C o u r t

, c a s u a

l l y t h r o w

o u t t e r m s a n d p h r a s e s w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o w h a t t h e y a c t

u a l l y m e a n

. S e c o n d

, a s n o t e d

, t h i s

c a s e c o n v i n c e s m e t h a t n o e n

t i t y i n t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m h a s a n y w a y o f a c t u a l l y1 3

determining whether sentences handed down by the district courts are “uniform,” much

less consistent, equitable, fair, just, or proportionate.

¶ 2 9 With respect to terminology, “ u niformity i n s e n t e n c i n g ” c o n t e m

p l a t e s t h a

t

s e n t e n c e s w i l l b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a l a c k o f v a r i a t i o n ; t h a t t

h e y w i l l b e i d e

n t i c a l o r

c o n s i s t e n t

. S e e B l

a c k ’ s L a w D i c t i o n a r

y 1 6 6 8 ( B r y a n A

. G a r n e r e d

. , 9 t h e d

. , W e s t 2 0 0 9 )

.

H o w e v e r

, a s n o t e d

, b o t

h t h e S t a t e a n d t h i s C o u r t q u a

l i f y t h i s e x a c t i n g s t a n d a r d w i t h t h e

requirement that sentencing c o u r t s t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t “ equity i s s u e s

. ” E q u i t y b r o a d l y

c o n t e m p l a t e s f a i r n e s s

, i m

p a r t i a l i t y

, a n d e v

e n h a n d e d n e s s

. S e e B l a c k ’

s L a w D i c t i o n a r

y

619. Moreover, both the State and this Court further qualify the uniformity standard by

requiring sentencing co u r t s t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t “ c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f justice

. ” T h a t w h i c h

i s j u s t i s l e g

a l l y r i g h t

, l a w f u l

, a n d e q

u i t a b l e

. S e e B l

a c k ’ s L a w D i c t i o n a r

y 942. Finally,

even SRD acknowledges that it has an obligation to reduce disparities in the sentencing

of prison ers. Disparity means inequality, i.e., “ a difference in quantity or quality between

two or more things .” B l a c k ’ s L a w D i c t i o n a r

y 538. Thus, using the terminology the

C o u r t a d o p t s

, i t a p p e a r s t h a

t t h e “ p r i m a r y o b

j e c t i v e ” o f S R D i s

, a t o n e a n d t h e s a m e t i m e

,

t o r e v i e w s e n t e n c e s f

o r a l a c k o f v a r i a t i o n ; f

o r f a i r n e s s

, i m

p a r t i a l i t y

, a n d e v

e n h a n d e d n e s s ;

for legality and equity; and for differences in quantity and quality as compared with other

sentences imposed.

¶ 3 0 Yet, SRD’s Rule 17 states that a sentence will be reviewed to determine whether it

is “clearly inadequate or excessive.” “ Clear ” means “[f] ree from doubt; sure .” Black’s

Law Dictionary 287. “ Inadequate ” m e a n s “ i n s u f f i c i e n t

. ” Merriam

- W

e b s t e r ’ s C o l l e g i a t e1 4

D i c t i o n a r y 586 ( 10th ed., Merriam

- Webster 1997) . “ Excessive ” means “going beyond a

n o r m a l l i m

i t

. ” Merriam

- W

e b s t e r ’ s C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r

y 4 0 4

. T h u s

, u

n d e r R u l e 1 7

,

S R D r e v i e w s a s e n t e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e s e n t e n c e

, w i t h o u t d o u b t

, i s i n s u f

f i c i e n t

o r g o e s b e y o n d t

h e n o r m a l l i m

i t

.

¶ 3 1 In my view, SR D ’ s p o w e r o f “ b r o a d r e v i e w

, ” O p i n i o n

, ¶ 2 1

, a p p l y i n g t h e n u a n c e d

t e r m i n o l o g y t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s a d o p t e d

, c a n n o t b e s q u a r e d w i t h o r a c c o m p l i s h e d u n d e r

t h e “ c l e a r l y i n a d e q u a

t e o r e x c e s s i v

e ” s t a n d a r d

. “ C l e a r l y i n a d e q u a t e o r e x c e s s i v e ”

c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t a m

u c h w i d e r r a n g

e o f s e n t e n c e s w i l l b e f

o u n d a p p r o p r i a t e t h a

n u n d e r

a n “ e q u i t y ” a n d “ f

a i r n e s s ” s t a n d a r d

. I

n d e e d

, a n y l a w f u l s e n t e n c e ( i

. e

. , o n e t

h a t f a l l s

w i t h i n t h e p a r a m e t e r s s e t b y s t a t u t e

, s e e S t a t e v

. G r a n a

, 2009 MT 250

, ¶ 1 1

, 3 5 1 M o n t

.

4 9 9

, 2 1 3 P

. 3 d 7 8 3 ) w o u l d p a s s m u s t e r

. B u

t a s e n t e n c e c e r t a i n l y c a n b e n o n

- u n i f o r m

,

i n c o n s i s t e n t

, u n f

a i r

, a n d i n e q u i t a

b l e w i t h o u

t b e i n g “ c l e a r l y i n a d e q u a t e o r e x c e s s i v e

. ” I

n

s u m

, w h i l e t h e C o u r t n o m

i n a l l y i m p o s e s a b r o a d s t a n d a r d o f s e n t e n c e r e v i e w

, i t t h e n

a l l o w s S R D t o apply another standard that is much narrower and more constrained.

¶ 3 2 More to the point, while § 46

- 18

- 901(4), MCA, allows SRD to adopt rules that

will “ expedite its review of sentences ,” no provision of Title 46, chapter 18, part 9, MCA,

suggests or permits the “clearly inadequate or excessive” standard adopted by SRD.

I n d e e d

, S R D f

u n c t i o n s a s a n a r m o f t h i s C o u r t

, § 4 6

- 1 8

- 9 0 1 ( 1 )

, M C A ; R a n t a v

. S t a t e

,

1998 MT 95, ¶ 27, 288 Mont. 391, 958 P.2d 670 , a n d this Court has required SRD to

review sentences “on equi t a b l e g r o u n d s

, ” R a n t

a

, ¶ 2 7 ; S

t a t e v

. T r i p l e t t , 2008 MT 360,

¶ 2 7

, 3 4 6 M o n t

. 3 8 3

, 1 9 5 P

. 3 d 8 1 9

. B u t y e t n o w w e r e q u i r e S R D t o s o m e h o w c o n d u c t1 5

that review for equity, Opinion, ¶ 20, without actually reviewing for simple equity,

Opinion, ¶ 21.

¶ 3 3 Indeed, the C o u r t ’ s O p i n i o n i s i n t e r n a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t o n t h i s p o i n t a n d

, u l t i m a t e l y

,

w i l l o n l y e n g

e n d e r c o n f

u s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d t h a t S R D i s t o a p p l y

.

F i r s t

, as noted, the Court tells us that SRD “was created to review sentences challenged

as bein g unjust or inequitable,” Opinion, ¶ 18, and that SRD “may take into account

‘equity issues,’ ” Opinion, ¶ 16. Indeed, the Court reaffirms that SRD “ review [ s ] ‘for

equity,’ ” O p i n i o n

, ¶ 2 0 ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v

. S t e

p h e n s , 198 Mont. 140, 145, 645 P.2d 387,

390 (1982)), and that a defendant “can rightly appeal to [SRD’s] judges on equitable

grounds,” Opinion, ¶ 20. But then the Court inexplicably follows all of this with its

holding in ¶ 21 that “[s]imple ‘equity’ cannot serve as the standard of review.”

O bviou sly, “equity” cannot simultaneously be both part of the calculus and not part of the

calculus

— e x c e p t

, p e r h a p s

, i n t h e w o r l d o f q u a n t u m p h y s i c s

, c

f

. D e n k e v

. S h o e m a k e r

,

2008 MT 418, ¶ 78 & n. 2, 347 Mont. 322, 198 P.3d 284.

¶ 3 4 T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d r e p e a t e d l y t

h a t w e w i l l n o t r e v

i e w a c r i m i n a l s e n t e n c e f o r

equity because that is the responsibility of SRD. 2 T h u s

, t o t h e e x t e n t t h e C o u r t r e a

l l y

2 T h e c a s e s s t a n d i n g f

o r t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n d a t e b a c k a t l e a s t a s f a r a s t h e e a r l y 1 9 8 0 s

a n d a r e t o o n

u m e r o u s t o l i s t i n t

h e i r e n t i r e t y h e r e

. T h e f

o l l o w i n g r e l a t i v

e l y s m a l l

s a m p l i n g w i l l s u f

f i c e t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e p o i n t : S t a t e v

. B a k e r

, 2 0 0 8 M T 3 9 6

, ¶ 1 5

, 3 4 7

M o n t

. 1 5 9

, 1 9 7 P

. 3 d 1 0 0 1 ( “ B a k e r ’ s c o n t e n t i o n s t h a t t h e t e r m s o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n v i o l a t e

s t a t u t o r y s e n t e n c i n g p o l i c i e s a r e e q u i t y i s s u e s

, r e v i e w o f w h i c h l i e s w i t h t h e S e

n t e n c e

R e v i e w D i v i s i o n

, n o t t h i s C o u r t

. ” ) ; S t a t e v

. D u n c a n

, 2 0 0 8 M T 1 4 8

, ¶ 5 0

, 3 4 3 M o n t

. 2 2 0

, 1 8 3 P

. 3 d 1 1 1 ( “ W

h e r e

, a s h e r e

, a n o f

f e n d e r i s s e n t e n c e d t o m o r e t h a n o n e y e a r i n p r i s o n

,

w e r e v i e w t h a t s e n t e n c e f o r l e g a l i t y o n l y

. I

n s u c h c a s e s

, a n y c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e e q u i t y o f

t h e s e n t e n c e m

u s t b e b r o u g

h t b e f o r e t h e S e n t e n c e R e v i e w D i v i s i o n

. ” ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ) ;1 6

means what it says in ¶ 21 (i.e., that “[s]imple ‘equity’ cannot ser ve as the standard of

review”), which in turn means that the myriad cases which hold that SRD reviews

sentences “for equity” are no longer good law, then two possibilities follow: f irst, no one

r e v i e w s s e n t e n c e s f

o r e q u i t y a f

t e r t o d a y ’ s d e c i s i o n ; o r s e c o n d

, t h i s C o u r t n o w m

u s t

r e v i e w s e n t e n c e s f

o r e q u i t y

. T h e o n l y r e a s o n w e h a v e n o t b e e n d o i n g s o i s b e c a u s e w e

State v. Shults , 2006 MT 100, ¶ 32, 332 Mont. 130, 136 P.3d 507 (“[S]ince Shults ’s

sentence is within statutory parameters, his equity argument is not properly before this

Court. Although we will not review the equity of Shults’s sentence, he is not precluded

f r o m p e t i t i o n i n g f

o r s e n t e n c e r e v

i e w

. ” ( c i t a t i o n o m

i t t e d ) ) ; S t a t e v

. W a r d e l l , 2005 MT

252, ¶ 29, 329 Mont. 9, 122 P.3d 443 (“Although we will not review the equity of

W a r d e l l ’ s s e n t e n c e h e m a y p e t i t i o n f o r s e n t e n c e r e v i e w

. ” ) ; S t a t e v

. L e

g g , 2004 MT 26,

¶ 53, 319 Mont. 362, 84 P.3d 648 (“The State responds, and we agree, that this is an issue

concerning the equity of Legg’s sentence, which properly lies with the Sentence Review

D i v i s i o n

. ” ) ; Vernon Kills On Top v. State , 2000 MT 340, ¶ 74, 303 Mont. 164, 15 P.3d

422 (“To the extent Petitioner’s complaints relate to the equity of his sentence, those

c o m p l a i n t s a r e p r o p e r

l y a d d r e s s e d t o t h e S e

n t e n c e R e v i e w D i v i s i o n o f t h i s C o u r t

. ” ) ; State

v. Montoya , 1999 MT 180, ¶ 14, 295 Mont. 288, 983 P.2d 937 (“[A] challenge to the

‘ e q u i t a b i l i t y ’ o f a s e n t e n c e f a l l s u n d e r t h e a u t

h o r i t y o f t h e S e n t e n c e R e v i e w D i v i s i o n

. . . .”); State v. Gordon , 1999 MT 169, ¶ 54, 295 Mont. 183, 983 P.2d 377 (“To the

extent Gordon’s complaints relate to the equity of his sentence, those complaints are

p r o p e r l y a d d r e s s e d t o t h e S e n

t e n c e R e v i e w D i v i s i o n o f t h i s C o u r t

. ” ) ; S t a t e v

. B a i s c h

, 1998 MT 12, ¶ 15, 287 Mont. 191, 953 P.2d 1070 (“We will not review sentences for

m e r e i n e q u i t y o r d i s p a r i t y ; t h a t t a s k i s l e f t t o t h e S e n t e n c e R e v i e w D i v i s i o n

. ” ) ; State v.

Romannose , 281 Mont. 84, 94, 931 P.2d 1304, 1311 (1997) (“To th e extent that Martin’s

complaints concern the equity of his sentence, those must be addressed to the Sentence

R e v i e w D i v i s i o n

. ” ) ; S t a t e v

. M o o r m a n , 279 Mont. 330, 337, 928 P.2d 145, 149 (1996)

(“[T]he Sentence Review Division reviews the equity of a senten c e

. ” ) ; S t a t e v

. F o r d , 278

Mont. 353, 363, 926 P.2d 245, 251 (1996) (“We will not review a sentence for mere

i n e q u i t y ; t h e p r o p e r f

o r u m f o r a r e v i e w o f t h a t n a

t u r e i s t h e S e n t e

n c e R e v i e w D i v i s i o n

. ” ) ;

S t a t e v

. D e S

a l v o , 273 Mont. 343, 350, 903 P.2d 202, 207 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( “ [ T ] h e p r o p e r c h a n n e l

f o r a c h a l l e

n g e t o t h e e q u i t y o f a s e n t e n c e a s o p p o s e d t o i t s l e g a l i t y i s t h r o u g

h t h e

S e n t e n c e R e v

i e w D i v i s i o n

. W e h a v

e c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a

t we will not review a sentence

on appeal for m ere inequity or disparity. ” ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n

o m i t t e d ) )

.1 7

a s s u m e d t h a t S R D w a s r e v i e w i n g f o r e q u i t y

. I

n S t a t e v

. H

e r d , 2004 MT 85, ¶ 22, 320

Mont. 490, 87 P.3d 1017, we explained:

Henceforth, if an offender is eligible for Sentence Review

— in other words,

if the offender is sentenced to one year or more of actual incarceration

—

t h i s C o u r t w i l l

. . . r e v i e w s u c h a s e n t e n c e f o r l e g a l i t y o n l y

. I

t w i l l b e l e f

t i n

t h e s e c a s e s t o S R D t o r e v i e w s e n t e n c e s f o r e q u i t y

. H o w e v e r

, i f a n o f f e n d e r

i s s t a t u t o r i l y i n e l i g i b l e f

o r S R D

, t h e n t h i s C o u r t w i l l u t i l i z e t h e t w o

- t i e r e d

a p p r o a c h w

h i c h w e e m

p l o y e d p r i o r t o t h e c r e a t i o n o f S R D

. U p o n r e q u e s t

,

w e w i l l r e v

i e w s u c h s e n t e n c e s f

o r b o t h l e g a l i t y a n d a

b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

.

U n d e r t h i s l o g i c

, i t f o l l o w s t h a

t b e c a u s e S R D n o l o n g

e r r e v i e w s s e n t e n c e s f

o r e q u i t y

, a s

the Court apparently h o l d s i n ¶ 2 1

, t h a t t a s k w i l l n o w f

a l l b a c k o n u s

. See also Ranta v.

State , 1998 MT 95, ¶ 27, 288 Mont. 391, 958 P.2d 670 ( “ Were the legislature to abolish

[SRD], the function of reviewing sentences on equitable grounds would thus simply

return to this Court.”).

¶ 3 5 In sum, if SRD actually has the broad power of review the Court says it has,

O p i n i o n

, ¶ 2 0

, t h e

n t h i s p o w e r c a n n o t b e f

u l l y e x e r c i s e d t h r o u g

h a s t a n d a r d t h a

t limits the

question before SRD to whether the sentence is “clearly inadequate or excessive.” But if

SRD is in fact to be so limited in its review, such that “[s]imple ‘equity’ cannot serve as

t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w

, ” O p i n i o n

, ¶ 2 1

, t h e n t h e f o l l o w i n g n e w p r o c e d u r e s w i l l h a v e t o b e

o b s e r v e d : t h i s C o u r t w i l l r e v i e w a s e n t e n c e f

o r l e g a l i t y a n d e q u i t y

, see Herd

, ¶ 2 2 ;

Ranta , ¶ 2 7

, a

n d S R D w i l l perform its limited review to determine if the sentence is

“clearly inadequate o r e x c e s s i v e

. ” C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y

, o u r “ r e v

i e w f o r e q u i t y ” c a s e s h a v

e

e v i d e n t l y b e e n o v

e r r u l e d

.1 8

¶ 3 6 That being said, even assuming (for the sake of argument) that the components of

t h e C o u r t ’ s O p i n i o n a

n d S R D ’ s R

u l e 1 7 c o u l d b e r e c o n c i l e d i n s o m e s e n s i b l e a n d

p r a c t i c a l w a y

, t h i s e n t i r e d i s c u s s i o n i s l a r g e l y a c a d e m i c i n a n y e v

e n t

. A s stated above,

S R D f u n c t i o n s a s “ a n a r m o f t h i s C o u r t

. ” Ranta , ¶ 27. Yet, this Court does not monitor

SRD’s decisions to ensure that it is achieving its “primary objective”

— however that is

n o w c h a r a c t e r i z e d

. T h e r e i s n o r i g h t t o a p p e a l S R D ’ s d e c i s i o n s t o t h i s C o u r t

. S e e

§ 46

- 18

- 905(1), MCA. Thus, if SRD is truly “an arm of this Court,” then surely the left

hand has no idea what the right hand is routinely doing.

¶ 3 7 T h e p r o b l e m i s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s

, t h i s C o u r t

, a n d S R D a r e n o t p r o v i d e d w i t h

s t a t e w i d e s e n t e n c i n g s t a t i s t i c s t h a t w o u l d a l l o w a r e a s o n e d a n a

l y s i s a n d d e t e r m

i n a t i o n o f

( a ) t h e “ u n i f

o r m i t y i n s e n t e n c i n g

” o f c r i m i n a l d e f

e n d a n t s i n t h i s s t a t e

, a n d w

h e t h e r s u c h

s e n t e n c e s a r e c o n s i s t e n t

, e q u i t a b l e

, f a i r

, j u s t

, a n d p r o p o r

t i o n a t e

, a n d ( b ) w

h e t h e r S R D i s

achieving its “primary objective”

— a g a i n

, h o w e v

e r t h a t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d

. E v e n a s s u m i n g

t h a t t h e s e s t a t i s t i c s c o u l d b e p i e c e m e a l e d t o g e t h e r f r o m v a r i o u s s o u r c e s

, a l l p a r t i e s

c o n c e d e t h a

t t h i s s o r t o f s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a i s n o t a c c e s s i b l e i n a n y c o m p r e h e n s i v e

, r e a d i l y

a v a i l a b l e

, o r e a s i l y u s a b l e f o r m

. T h e s e s o r t s o f d a t a a n d s t a t i s t i c s a r e n o t r o u t i n e l y

s u p p l i e d i n r e p o r

t f o r m t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s

, t o t h i s C o u r t

, o r t o S R D

.

¶ 3 8 A c c o r d i n g

l y

, I a m a t a l o s s t o u n d e r s t a n d h o w u n i f o r m i t y o r e q u i t y i n s e n t e n c i n g

c a n b e a c h i e v

e d

. B o t h u

n i f o r m i t y a n d e q u i t y p r e s u p p o s e t h e a b i l i t y t o m a k e i n f o r m e d

c o m p a r i s o n s a c r o s s t h e s p e c t r u m o f d a t a f

o r w h i c h c o n s i s t e n c y

, f

a i r n e s s

, a n d

e v e n h a n d e d n e s s a r e s o u g

h t

. N e i t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s n o r t h i s C o u r t n o r S R D c a n1 9

presentl y make those sorts of informed comparisons. Uniformity and equity, as well as

i n a d e q u a c y a n d e x c e s s i v e n e s s

, b e g t h e q u e s t i o n : “ C o m

p a r e d t o w

h a t ? ” W i t h o u t t

h e

a b i l i t y t o m a k e i n f

o r m e d c o m

p a r i s o n s u s i n g a r e l i a b l e s p e c t r u m o f s t a t i s t i c s a n d d a t a

,

t h e s e s t andards produce little more than wholly subjective, ad hoc determinations.

¶ 3 9 Whether sentences are to be r e v i ewed for “uniformity,” taking into account

“equity issues” and “considerations of justice,” with the goal of reducing “disparities in

priso ner sente ncing, ” or are to be r e v i e w e d f o r “ c l e a r i n a d e q u a c y o r e x c e s s i v e n e s s

, ” a n d

i f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t s a r e e x p e c t e d t o s e n t e

n c e w i t h t

h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s i n m i n d

, t h e n a

r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e d a t a b a s e s h o u l d b e c r e a t e d t o p r o v i d e s t a t i s t i c a l i n f

o r m a t i o n o n a

s t a t e w i d e b a s i s f

o r s e n t e n c e s h a n d e d d o w n f o r v a r i o u s c r i m e s a n d o f

f e n d e r s

. T h i s

i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d r o u

t i n e l y b e m a d e a v

a i l a b l e i n r e p o r t f

o r m t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s

, t o

t h i s C o u r t

, a n d t o S R D

. H o p e f u l l y

, t h i s C o u r t

, t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f

C o r r ections

— or all three

— will pursue funding and legislative authority for the creation

of such a capability in the next legislative session.

¶ 4 0 I n t h e m e a n t i m e

, I w o u l d g r a n t t h e A

p p e l l a t e D e f

e n d e r ’ s P e t i t i o n f

o r W r i t o f

S u p e r v i s o r y C o n t r o l a

n d o r d e r S R D t o a m e n d i t s R u l e 1 7 t o p r

o v i d e

, c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r

caselaw and the purposes of SRD, that it will review sentences for “uniformity ,” Opinion,

¶ 19, taking into account “equity issues,” “considerations of justice,” “fairness,” and

“consistency,” Opinion, ¶¶ 16, 2 0. I dissent from t h e C o u r t ’ s f a i l u r e t o d o s o

.

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N