Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES WILLIAM POOLE, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1993-05-06
Citations: 263 Mont. 24
Docket Number: NO. 5830
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES WILLIAM POOLE, Defendant.
Judges: Hon. Thomas McKittrick, Chairman, Hon. G. Todd Baugh, and Hon. John Warner, Judges
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 24–24

Head Matter:
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES WILLIAM POOLE, Defendant.
NO. 5830
DATED this 6th day of May, 1993.
DECISION

Opinion:
On October 7, 1992 the Defendant's sentences were revoked and he shall was sentenced to a term often (10) years each on Count II, Kidnapping; on Count IV, Sexual Intercourse Without Consent; and on Count V, Sexual Intercourse Without Consent. Said sentences shall be served consecutively with each other and consecutively to the sentence imposed in Flathead County Cause No. DC-92-037B; plus other conditions as stated in the October 7, 1992 Judgment. For purposes of parole eligibility the Defendant is designated a dangerous offender.
On May 6,1993, 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 Dan O'Brien, Legal Intern from the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.
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 to increase it if such is possible. 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.
After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.
The reason for the decision is the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct pursuant to Section 46-18-904(3), MCA. The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to deem inadequate or excessive as required to overcome the presumption per Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.
Hon. Thomas McKittrick, Chairman, Hon. G. Todd Baugh, and Hon. John Warner, Judges
The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Dan O'Brien, Legal Intern from the Montana Defender Project for his assistance to the defendant and to this Court.