Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Rebecca Gunhammer, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1996-09-16
Citations: 281 Mont. 82
Docket Number: NO. 11790
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Rebecca Gunhammer, Defendant.
Judges: Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 281
Pages: 82–83

Head Matter:
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Rebecca Gunhammer, Defendant.
NO. 11790
DECISION

Opinion:
On May 6, 1996, it was the judgment of the Court that defendant's prior deferred sentence on Count I (Criminal Mischief, a Felony) is hereby revoked and that the defendant be and she is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years for suitable placement, which may include an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correctional institution. The Court will take no action on Count II (Criminal Michief, a Misdemeanor) and the deferred sentence on that count will expire. The defendant shall receive credit from August 30,1995, through October 16,1995; and from April 19,1996, through date of sentencing, May 6,1996, for sixty-six (66) days jail time which she had previously served.
On August 22, 1996, 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 proceeded Pro Se. The state was not represented.
DATED this 16th day of September, 1996.
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. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.
Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division provides: "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." (Section 45-18-904(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.
After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.
Done in open Court this 22nd day of August, 1996.
Chairman, Hon. Ted O. Lympus
Member, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock
Member, Hon. William Neis Swandal
The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Rebecca Gunhammer for representing herself in this matter.