Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. PATRICK PRICE, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2006-08-21
Citations: 335 Mont. 85
Docket Number: No. DC-04-42
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. PATRICK PRICE, Defendant,
Judges: Alt. Chairperson, Hon. Randal I. Spaulding, Member, Hon. Katherine Irigoin and Alt. Member, Hon. Douglas Harkin.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 335
Pages: 85–86

Head Matter:
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. PATRICK PRICE, Defendant,
No. DC-04-42
Decision
DATED this 21st day of August, 2006.

Opinion:
On April 12, 2005, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: Three (3) months in the County Jail, with credit for time served of eighty-five (85) days, to rim concurrent with Count II, for the offense of Partner Family Member Assault, a misdemeanor; and Count II: Commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of fifteen (15) years, with eleven (11) years suspended, with credit for time served of eighty-five (85) days, for the offense of Aggravated Burglary, a felony.
On August 10, 2006, 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 Cynthia Thornton. 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 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.
Done in open Court this 10th day of August, 2006.
Alt. Chairperson, Hon. Randal I. Spaulding, Member, Hon. Katherine Irigoin and Alt. Member, Hon. Douglas Harkin.