Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. WALKER, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2001-11-06
Citations: 308 Mont. 104
Docket Number: No. CDC-96-269
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. WALKER, Defendant,
Judges: Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey H. Langton, Member, Hon. David Cybulski and Member, Hon. Katherine R. Curtis.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 308
Pages: 104–105

Head Matter:
FROM: The District Court of the 1st Judicial District. County of Lewis and Clark.
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. WALKER, Defendant,
No. CDC-96-269

Opinion:
Decision
On June 7, 2001, the defendant was sentenced to a two (2) year commitment to the Department of Corrections, plus an additional two (2) year commitment to the Department of Corrections, to run consecutively to each other, for violations of the conditions of a suspended sentence for the offense of Felony Assault and for the Use of a Dangerous Weapon.
DATED this 6th day of November, 2001.
Done in open Court this 11th day of October, 2001.
On October 11, 2001, 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 Peter Bovingdon. 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.
Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey H. Langton, Member, Hon. David Cybulski and Member, Hon. Katherine R. Curtis.