No. 87-154
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATEOF MONTANA 1988

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiffand Respondent, -VS-, WILLIAM PETROFF, Defendantand Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District In and for the County ofMissoula TheHonorable Jack L. Green,Judgepresiding.
COUNSELOF RECORD:
ForAppellant: Carol Mitchell, Missoula,MT For Respondent: Honorable Mike Greely,Attorney General, Helena,MT Barbara Claassen,Assistant Attorney General Robert L. Deschamps, 111,CountyAttorney, Missoula,MT Edward McClain, Deputy County Attorney

Submitted on Briefs: March 31, 1988 Decided: May 6,1988

Filed: 

# - 1988

ClerkMr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the Court.Defendant (Petroff)appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County. We affirm. The issuesbefore the Court are: 1. Did the District Court properly delineate its
reasons for imposing sentence? 2. Did the DistrictCourt improperly rely on erroneous information in sentencing Petroff? On October 14, 1983, an informationwas filed charging Petroff with two counts of felony bad check writing. The first count charged the issuance of a $700 bad check; the second count charged the issuance of a $200bad check as part of a common scheme. The record indicates that Petroff had written several other checks without sufficient funds to cover the drafts. Following the DistrictCourt's rejectionof the initial plea bargain, Petroff plead guilty on Count I1 of the information. Count Iwas dismissed on the request of the State. The matter of sentencing came before the court on October 15, 1984. At that time, the District Court deferred imposition of sentence for a period of three years,provided that Petroff abide by certain conditions. The conditions imposed required,inter alia, that Petroffpay restitution in the amount of $2,561.35; that he abstain frommaintaining a checking account; thathemaintain contact with his Probation Officer; thathe receivepermission before changing his place of residence; and thathe seek andmaintain employment. A petition requesting revocation of probation and imposition of sentence was filed on October 15, 1985. The petition alleged Petroff had failed to make restitutionpayments since May, 1985. The petition was subsequently dismissed upon payment of the arrearage. A second petition requesting revocation of probation and imposition of sentence was filed on May 22, 1986. The petition alleged, and Petroff subsequently admitted, thathe had failed topay restitution; thathe had failed tomaintain contact with his Probation Officer; thathe had moved without permission; and thathe failed tomaintain employment. Following extradition fromGeorgia and admission of the probation violations, the District Court sentenced Petroff to ten years in prison, with three years suspended. Although the District Court did not state reasons for the sentence at that time, its judgment filed March 11, 1987, states the following: The reasons for the judgment are as follows: 1. The recommendations of the Pre-Sentence Investigation; 2. The Defendant'sprior criminal record.

Petroffmoved for reconsideration of sentence based on alleged inaccuracies in the pre-sentence investigation. The motion for reconsiderationwas heard by the District Court on March 19, 1987. At that time, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: Well, this case has a fairly extensive history. It goes back to a plea bargain in 1984 and a Judgment from that date. Thereafter, a probation violation, one dated October 10, 1985, one dated October

## -- or May 9, 1986. He's been given two chances before this. What is going to change things at this time, Mr. Mansch?THE COURT: Well, you have been given two opportunities in the past. 

### I gave you two breaks before, and this time you had to be brought back from the state ofGeorgia.


### I think my judgment is very fair 

# .. . and the judgment will stand.

The first specification of error concerns the District Court's alleged failure to state the reasons for the sentence imposed. Petroff argues, in effect, that the statement contained within the judgment, standing alone, is insufficient. We disagree. Generally, the manner and extent of punishment is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court. However, in State v. Stumpf (198O), 187 Mont. 225, 609 P.2d 298, we recognized that the requirements of basic fairness mandate the acknowledgement of a criminal defendant's right to be informed of the reasonsunderlying his or her punishment. We also noted the adverse effect the failure to state such
reasons had on the ability of an appellate court, and the SentenceReview Board, to conduct an informed evaluationof a case. 187Mont. at 227, 609 P.2d at 299. The Stumpf rationale does not impose a duty upon the District Court to set forth its reasoning orally in open court and in writing, however. From the record, it is clear that the judgment clearly informed Petroff of the reasons underlying his sentence. No
more is required. See, State v. Johnson (~ont.1986), 719 P.2d 1248, 43 St.Rep. 1010. Petroff also contends that the District Court relied upon incorrect information in sentencing him. Specifically, that the court wrongly assumed that Petroff had two previous probationviolations. We find Petroff's argument strained at best.Although this Court has held that a criminal defendant has a right to a sentence based upon substantially correct information,Statev. Herrera (1982),197Mont. 462, 643P.2d 588,we will not strain at worst-case assumptions in order to find amistake. Rather, the District Court is presumed to be correct. State v. Lane (1977), 175 Mont. 225, 573 P.2d 198; Petition of Meidinger (1975), 168 Mont. 7, 539 P.2d 1185. The statementsof theDistrict Court,reproduced infra, do not indicate that the court felt Petroff had two chances to correctprobation violations and failed to do so. Rather, the District Court correctly recognized that Petroff had two prior chances to avoid a more severe penalty, namely, the deferred imposition of sentence and forgiving the allegations contained within the firstpetition to revoke. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Justice 1

We concur: