Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, vs. Plaintiff, ROBERT HOPE, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2010-02-04
Citations: 359 Mont. 8
Docket Number: CAUSE NO. DC-09-002
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, vs. Plaintiff, ROBERT HOPE, Defendant.
Judges: Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Hon. Ray Dayton, and Alternate Member Hon. John Warner.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 359
Pages: 8–9

Head Matter:
The District Court of the 7th Judicial District. County of Dawson.
STATE OF MONTANA, vs. Plaintiff, ROBERT HOPE, Defendant.
CAUSE NO. DC-09-002 DECISION

Opinion:
On September 2, 2009, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Counts I - Ill: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison on each Count, to run consecutively with each other and with Count IV, for the offenses of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, felonies; and Count IV: Fifteen (15) years in the Montana State Prison, to ran consecutively with Counts I - III, for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a felony.
On February 4, 2010, 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 Eric Olson. 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 4th day of February, 2010.
DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.
Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Hon. Ray Dayton, and Alternate Member Hon. John Warner.