No. 87-154 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1988 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-VS-, 

WILLIAM PETROFF, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District 

In and for the County of Missoula 

The Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Carol Mitchell, Missoula, MT 

For Respondent: 

Honorable Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, MT 

Barbara Claassen, Assistant Attorney General 

Robert L. Deschamps, 111, County Attorney, Missoula, MT 

Edward McClain, Deputy County Attorney 

Submitted on Briefs: March 31, 1988 

Decided: May 6, 1988 

Filed: - 1988 

Clerk 
Mr. 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 issues before the Court are: 

1. Did the District Court properly delineate its 

reasons for imposing sentence? 

2. Did the District Court improperly rely on erroneous 

information in sentencing Petroff? 

On October 14, 1983, an information was 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 $200 bad 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 District Court's rejection of the initial 

plea bargain, Petroff plead guilty on Count I1 of the information. Count I was 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 Petroff pay restitution in 

the amount of $2,561.35; that he abstain from maintaining a 

checking account; that he maintain contact with his Probation 

Officer; that he receive permission before changing his place 

of residence; and that he seek and maintain 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 restitution 
payments 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, that he 

had failed to pay restitution; that he had failed to maintain 

contact with his Probation Officer; that he had moved without 

permission; and that he failed to maintain employment. 

Following extradition from Georgia 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's prior criminal record. 

Petroff moved for reconsideration of sentence based on 

alleged inaccuracies in the pre-sentence investigation. The 

motion for reconsideration was 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 of Georgia. 

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 reasons underlying 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 

Sentence Review Board, to conduct an informed evaluation of a 

case. 187 Mont. 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 

probation violations. 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, State v. Herrera (1982), 197 Mont. 462, 643 P.2d 

588, we will not strain at worst-case assumptions in order to 

find a mistake. 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 statements of the District Court, reproduced infra, 

do not indicate that the court felt Petroff had two chances 

to correct probation 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 first petition to revoke. 

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 

Justice 1 

We concur: