Title: MATTER OF LEDESMA
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13479
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 24, 1976

Yo. 13479 '-N LkfL ~UPKI:IVIE 30URf O F THE STATE 3P' "ION'I'ANA 1976 Zounsel of Record: For P e t i t i o n e r : David J. P a t t e r s o n =ind Gregory ToJd, L~lissoula , Montana Hon. Robert Id. Woodahl, Atcorney General, Helena, Montana !iearing Waived -- Submitted: September 13, 1976 Decided: S k ? z i 1 9 7 6 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding wherein p e t i t i o n e r seeks post-conviction r e l i e f by reason of t h e following f a c t s : He is c u r r e n t l y serving a 5 year prison sentence a t Montana S t a t e Prison. O n October 16, 1972, he was found g u i l t y of t h e crime of burglary i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Yellowstone County. He was sentenced t o f i v e years i n Montana S t a t e Prison, but t h i s was suspended on c e r t a i n conditions, one of them being t h a t he s e r v e nine months i n Yellowstone County j a i l . A s a r e s u l t t h e p e t i t i o n e r was incarcerated i n Yellowstone County j a i l from August 2 4 , 1972 through May 23, 1973. O n April 7, 1975, t h e suspended sentence was revoked and p e t i t i o n e r was ordered t o serve t h e f u l l f i v e year sentence i n Montana S t a t e Prison. He was given c r e d i t f o r 54 days of j a i l t i m e which was computed from t h e day of h i s a r r e s t t o t h e day of sentencing. P e t i t i o n e r seeks c r e d i t f o r t h e t i m e he spent i n Yellowstone County j a i l a s a con- d i t i o n of t h e suspended sentence. The question f o r t h e Court is whether t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , p r i o r t o t h e i r amendment t o s e c t i o n 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947, i n 1973, intended t h a t i n t h e event of a revocation of a suspended sentence, "elapsed time" a s s t a t e d t h e r e i n excluded " j a i l time". O r , does s e c t i o n 95-2215, R.C.M. 1947, govern t h e c r e d i t of t i m e spent i n j a i l p r i o r t o t h e revocation? O r d i d it intend t h a t s e c t i o n 95- 2215 only be applicable i n s i t u a t i o n s o t h e r than a suspended sentence. W e quote t h e applicable portions of t h e two s t a t u t e s involved. Section 95-2215, R.C.M. 1947, i n p a r t provides: "95-2215. Credit f o r i n c a r c e r a t i o n p r i o r t o con- v i c t i o n . ( a ) Any person incarcerated on a b a i l - a b l e offense and a q a i n s t whom a iudqment of imprisonment i s rendered s h a l l be ailowed c r e d i t f o r each day of i n c a r c e r a t i o n p r i o r t o o r a f t e r conviction except t h a t i n no case s h a l l t h e time allowed as a c r e d i t exceed t h e term of t h e prison sentence rendered." Section 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947, i n r e l e v a n t p a r t provides: "95-2206. Sentence. Whenever any person has been found g u i l t y of a crime o r offense upon a v e r d i c t o r plea the- c o u r t may impose any of t h e following sentences: " (3) Suspend t h e execution of t h e sentence up t o t h e maximum sentence allowed f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r offense. However, i f any r e s t r i c t i o n s o r conditions a r e v i o l a t e d , any elapsed time s h a l l not be a c r e d i t a g a i n s t t h e sentence, unless t h e c o u r t s h a l l other- wise order." This s e c t i o n speaks s p e c i f i c a l l y t o rendering a suspended sentence and gives t h e sentencing judge t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o award o r deny c r e d i t f o r "elapsed time". Section 95-2215, R.C.M. 1947, makes it mandatory t h a t c r e d i t be given f o r a l l days of incarcer- a t i o n p r i o r t o o r a f t e r conviction, when a person i s incarcerated on a b a i l a b l e offense and has a judgment of imprisonment rendered a g a i n s t him. To determine t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t one must consider t h a t both of these s t a t u t e s were enacted a t t h e same t i m e . Sec. 1, Ch. 196, L. 1967. I n a l a t e r 1973 amendment t o s e c t i o n 95-2206, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e excepted " j a i l time" from t h e term "elapsed time" and l e f t s e c t i o n 95-2215 unchanged. A reasonable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s a c t i o n is t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t o c l a r i f y t h e e a r l i e r language of s e c t i o n 95-2206 t o p l a c e t h e c r e d i t of j a i l t i m e within t h e mandate of s e c t i o n 95-2215. The Court has held t h a t a f t e r t h i s amendment a person i s e n t i t l e d t o c r e d i t f o r t h e t i m e spent i n j a i l p r i o r t o a revocation of a suspended sentence. In t h e Matter of Hanson, Mont. , 544 P.2d 8 1 6 , 33 St.Rep. 7 0 . This Court has never addressed t h e question whether sec- t i o n 95-2215 has any e f f e c t i n t h e c a s e of a revocation of a suspended sentence, when t h e p e t i t i o n e r seeks c r e d i t only f o r t h e t i m e spent i n j a i l p r i o r t o t h e revocation. However, t h e Court has answered t h e i s s u e i n regard t o a revocation of a deferred imposition of sentence. Bovee v. D i s t r i c t Court, 162 Mont. 98, 508 P.2d 1056; Maldonado v. C r i s t , 162 Mont. 240, 510 P.2d 887. I n each i n s t a n c e t h e Court s a i d t h a t s e c t i o n 95-2215 was c o n t r o l l i n g and t h a t t h e only i s s u e involved should be whether defendant was incarcerated on a b a i l a b l e offense within t h e mean- ing of t h a t s t a t u t e . I f so, he w a s e n t i t l e d t o c r e d i t f o r t h e t i m e spent i n j a i l a s a condition of t h e deferment when t h e deferment was revoked. From a p r a c t i c a l p o i n t of view a suspended sentence and a deferred imposition of sentence a r e very s i m i l a r . I n each in- stance t h e defendant must adhere t o c e r t a i n conditions t o avoid a more severe sentence. It seems u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t h a t a person receiving a deferred imposition of sen- tence be e n t i t l e d t o c r e d i t f o r t h e t i m e spent i n j a i l a s a condition of t h e deferment i f such deferment is revoked, but t h e person receiving a suspended sentence i s not s o e n t i t l e d . For t h e s e reasons t h e cause i s remanded t o t h e sentenc- ing c o u r t with d i r e c t i o n s t o make and e n t e r a revised judgment granting defendant c r e d i t f o r h i s jail t i m e . It i s so ordered. - 4 - We concur: