Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER V. LEE, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2010-02-04
Citations: 359 Mont. 12
Docket Number: CAUSE NO. DC-04-061B
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER V. LEE, Defendant.
Judges: Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 359
Pages: 12–12

Head Matter:
The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER V. LEE, Defendant.
CAUSE NO. DC-04-061B DECISION

Opinion:
On January 19, 2005, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Forty (40) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Aggravated Burglary, a felony; and Count II: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Intimidation, a felony. Counts I and II shall run concurrently. Prior to being eligible for parole the defendant shall successfully participate in and complete Cognitive Principles and Restructuring.
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 Julianne Hinchey. The state was represented by Ed Corrigan.
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, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.