Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff, -vs- SHANE PATTERSON ROE, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2014-03-31
Citations: 377 Mont. 22
Docket Number: CAUSE NO. DC-13-051(D)
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff, -vs-SHANE PATTERSON ROE, Defendant.
Judges: Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member Hon. Kathy Seeley and Member Hon. Brenda Gilbert.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 377
Pages: 22–22

Head Matter:
STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff, -vs-SHANE PATTERSON ROE, Defendant.
DATED this 31st day of March, 2014.
CAUSE NO. DC-13-051(D)
DECISION

Opinion:
On August 8, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced for Count II: Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drags, a felony, in violation of Section 45-9-102(1), MCA to Montana State Prison for Five (5) years; credit for 285 days served in custody; Count I: Assault With A Weapon, a felony, in violation of 45-5-213(1)(a), MCA was Dismissed; and other terms and conditions given in the Judgment and Sentence on August 8, 2013.
On February 28, 2014, the Defendant's Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter "the Division").
The Defendant was present by Vision Net from the Great Falls Regional Prison in Great Falls, Montana, and was represented by Ed Sheehy, Jr., Montana Office of Public Defender. Mr. Sheehy appeared by Vision Net from his office in Missoula, Montana, due to severe weather and traveling conditions. The State was representedby Kenneth Park, Deputy Flathead County Attorney.
Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the 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 Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.
Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, "The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive." (Section 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 clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.
Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence shall be AFFIRMED.
Done in open Court this 28th day of February, 2014.
Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member Hon. Kathy Seeley and Member Hon. Brenda Gilbert.