Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. RONALD EARL STEVENS, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1993-05-07
Citations: 263 Mont. 44
Docket Number: NO. DC-90-174A and DC-92-079A
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. RONALD EARL STEVENS, Defendant.
Judges: Hon. Thomas McKittrick, Chairman, Hon. G. Todd Baugh, and Hon. John Warner, Judges
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 44–44

Head Matter:
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. RONALD EARL STEVENS, Defendant.
NO. DC-90-174A and DC-92-079A
DATED this 7th day of May, 1993.
DECISION

Opinion:
On July 21, 1992, the Defendant's sentence for Theft was revoked and he was sentenced in Cause No. DC-90-174A.03 to serve a full seven (7) years; in Cause No. DC-92-079A, the Defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years with five (5) suspended for Theft. Both sentences shall run consecutively to each other. The Defendant shall be given credit for 92 days time served. The five (5) years suspended shall be under the conditions stated in the July 21,1992 Judgment by Judge Keedy.
On May 7,1993, 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 Michelle Maltese, 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 Michelle Maltese, Legal Intern from the Montana Defender Project for her assistance to the defendant and to this Court.