Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY J. LOUT, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2003-09-08
Citations: 319 Mont. 48
Docket Number: No. DC-02-79
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY J. LOUT, Defendant,
Judges: Chairperson, Hon. Katherine R. Curtis, Member, Hon. Marc G. Buyske and Member, Hon. Gary L. Day.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 319
Pages: 48–49

Head Matter:
From: The District Court of the 21st Judicial District. County of Ravalli.
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY J. LOUT, Defendant,
No. DC-02-79
Decision

Opinion:
On March 26, 2003, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: Life in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent; and Count II: Life in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (Common Scheme), a felony, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Count I, and concurrently with the sentence the Defendant is currently serving in the Montana State Prison.
On August 21, 2003, the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court heard the defendant's application for review of that sentence.
The defendant was present and was represented by Sasha Brownlee. The state was represented by Geoffrey Mahar.
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.
DATED this 8th day of September, 2003.
Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.
Done in open Court this 21st day of August, 2003.
Chairperson, Hon. Katherine R. Curtis, Member, Hon. Marc G. Buyske and Member, Hon. Gary L. Day.