Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Michael Jack Speiser, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1997-03-04
Citations: 286 Mont. 20
Docket Number: NO. 11986
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Michael Jack Speiser, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 286
Pages: 20–20

Head Matter:
FROM: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. Michael Jack Speiser, Defendant.
NO. 11986 DECISION
DATED this 4th day of March, 1997.

Opinion:
On June 3, 1996, it was the judgment of the Court that Michael Jack Speiser be and is hereby committed to the Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years on Count II (Theft, a Felony) for suitable placement, which may include an appropriate community based program, facility, or a State correctional institution. It is the judgment of the Court that Michael Jack Speiser be and is hereby sentenced to a term of six (6) months each on Count III through VI (misdemeanors) in the Missoula County Jail in Missoula, Montana. The sentences shall run concurrently with each other. Defendant shall receive credit for time served at Missoula County Jail from January 3, 1996, through date of sentencing, June 3, 1996, in the amount of one hundred fifty-two (152) days.
On February 20, 1997, 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.
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 20th day of February, 1997.
Chairman, Hon. Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Member, Hon. Wm. Neis Swandal and Member, Hon. Richard G. Phillips.
The Sentence Review Board wishes to thank Michael Jack Speiser for representing himself in this matter.