Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Ronald R. Gaines, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1995-05-23
Citations: 274 Mont. 47
Docket Number: NO. 11246
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Ronald R. Gaines, Defendant.
Judges: Hon. John Warner, Chairman, Hon. Robert Boyd, Alternate Member, and Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 274
Pages: 47–48

Head Matter:
FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Ronald R. Gaines, Defendant.
NO. 11246 DECISION

Opinion:
On January 10, 1995 the Court found the defendant in violation of the conditions of his suspended sentence and it is the judgment of the Court that defendant's prior suspended sentence is hereby revoked and that the defendant be and he 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. It is the recommendation of the Court that the defendant be considered for placement at the Swan River Correctional Training Center. Due to the defendant's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence while under the supervision of the Department of Probation and Parole, the Court finds that he is not entitled to receive, and shall not receive, credit for any elapsed time between the date of his conviction and the date of this order, except that he shall receive credit from August 4, 1994 through August 23, 1994; and from December 14, 1994, through date of sentencing, January 10, 1995, for forty-eight (48) days jail time which he has previously served. For purposes of parole eligibility the defendant is designated a non-dangerous offender.
On May 12, 1995, 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.
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 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 remain the same as originally imposed.
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 find that the sentence imposed is either inadequate or excessive as is required to overcome the presumption that the sentence is correct.
DATED this 23rd day of May, 1995.
Done in open Court this 12th day of May, 1995.
Hon. John Warner, Chairman, Hon. Robert Boyd, Alternate Member, and Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member.
The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Ronald Gaines for representing himself in this matter.