Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. LEON HARLSON, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2007-05-22
Citations: 340 Mont. 61
Docket Number: Cause No. DC-03-461
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. LEON HARLSON, Defendant,
Judges: Chairperson, Hon. Randal I. Spaulding, Member, Hon. Katherine Irigoin and Member, Hon. Stewart Stadler.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 340
Pages: 61–61

Head Matter:
Done in open Court this 3rd day of May, 2007.
DATED this 22nd day of May, 2007.
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. LEON HARLSON, Defendant,
Cause No. DC-03-461
DECISION

Opinion:
On November 4, 2004, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Five (5) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Theft, a felony; Count II: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Theft, a felony; and Count III: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, all suspended, for the offense of Criminal endangerment, a felony. The Counts shall run concurrently with each other and with Criminal Cause Number DC-03-0709.
On May 3, 2007, the defendant's application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.
The defendant was present and was represented by Richard Carstensen. The state was represented by Mark Murphy.
Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.
Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that "the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive." (§46-18-904(3), MCA).
The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.
Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.
Chairperson, Hon. Randal I. Spaulding, Member, Hon. Katherine Irigoin and Member, Hon. Stewart Stadler.