Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. William P. Best, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1999-02-11
Citations: 298 Mont. 3
Docket Number: NO. 13181
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. William P. Best, Defendant.
Judges: Chairman, Hon. Richard G. Phillips, Member, Hon. Jeffrey H. Langton and Member, Hon. Marge Johnson
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 298
Pages: 3–4

Head Matter:
FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. William P. Best, Defendant.
NO. 13181 DECISION

Opinion:
On December 2,1998, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: thirteen (13) month commitment to the Department of Corrections; Count II and III: six (6) months, on each count to the Missoula County Jail; and Count IV: $500 fine. After completion of the defendant's sentence on Count I, the defendant shall be placed on supervised probation for a period of four (4) years. Count II and III shall run concurrently with each other and the sentence imposed in Count I shall run consecutively to the sentences imposed in Count II and III.
On February 11, 1999, 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 Mark McLaverty. 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.
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 11th day of February, 1999.
DATED this 9th day of March, 1999.
Chairman, Hon. Richard G. Phillips, Member, Hon. Jeffrey H. Langton and Member, Hon. Marge Johnson