Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DAVID ERVIN, Defendant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2007-02-23
Citations: 340 Mont. 8
Docket Number: Cause No. DC-06-11
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DAVID ERVIN, Defendant,
Judges: Chairperson, Hon. Randal I. Spaulding, Member, Hon. Katherine Irigoin and Member, Hon. Stewart Stadler.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 340
Pages: 8–9

Head Matter:
Done in open Court this 8th day of February, 2007.
DATED this 23rd day of February, 2007.
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DAVID ERVIN, Defendant,
Cause No. DC-06-11
DECISION

Opinion:
On November 1, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to forty (40) years in the Montana State Prison, with twenty (20) years suspended, for the offense of Incest, a felony. The Defendant shall not be eligible for parole for a period of ten (10) years; and shall also not be eligible for parole until he has completed Phases I and II of the sex offender program.
On February 8, 2007, 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 Milton Datsopoulos. The state was represented by William Fullbright who appeared via videoconference.
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.
Chairperson, Hon. Randal I. Spaulding, Member, Hon. Katherine Irigoin and Member, Hon. Stewart Stadler.