Opinion ID: 2824559
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Collateral Review in Montana

Text: This case arises out of Montana’s dual-track system for collateral review of criminal sentences. On one track, Montana permits prisoners to seek post-conviction collateral relief — typically referred to as “post-conviction relief” — from both the conviction and sentence. Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-101. The state district court that imposed a criminal sentence has the power “to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence.” Id. § 46-21-101(1). A petition for post-conviction relief “may be filed at any time within 1 year of the date that the conviction becomes final.” Id. § 46-21-102(1). 4 ROGERS V. FERRITER On the other track, Montana permits prisoners to seek modification of their sentences from the Sentence Review Division (“SRD”). The SRD is a subdivision of the Montana Supreme Court consisting of three district court judges appointed by the chief justice. See Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18901; Charles S. Jordan, Montana’s Sentence Review Division: A Twenty Year Overview, 49 Mont. L. Rev. 369, 371 (1988). The SRD “has the authority . . . to affirm, decrease, increase or otherwise alter any sentence, subject to those limitations applicable to the original sentencing judge.” Jordan, supra, at 372; see also Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-904. The SRD is authorized to “adopt any rules that will expedite its review of sentences.” Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-901(4). The SRD’s “primary objective . . . is to provide for uniformity in sentencing when appropriate and to ensure that the interest of the public and the defendant are adequately addressed by the sentence.” Mont. Sentence Rev. Div. R. 16. The SRD must ensure that a sentence is based on (1) “[t]he crime committed”; (2) “[t]he prospects of rehabilitation of the offenders”; (3) “[t]he circumstances under which the crime was committed”; (4) and “[t]he criminal history of the offender.” Id. A sentence is “presumed correct” and “will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” Id. R. 17. The rules governing the timing for filing an application for SRD review are somewhat complicated. The one relevant statute provides that a petitioner may file an application for SRD review within sixty days of the date the sentence was imposed. Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-903(1). An SRD rule provides that if an application is filed more than sixty days after sentence is imposed, the SRD “shall thereafter promptly notify the defendant that the application is untimely and ROGERS V. FERRITER 5 request the defendant file within thirty (30) days a statement of reasons why the Sentence Review Division should hear the matter.” Mont. Sentence Rev. Div. R. 7. The rule specifies that a direct appeal of the sentence is a sufficient “reason” for a late filing: “The Sentence Review Division will hear late applications which have been caused by the taking of an appeal to the Montana Supreme Court.” Id. Rule 8 further provides: When there is a pending appeal or request for post-conviction relief, the application for Sentence Review should not be filed until such time as the petition for post-conviction relief or the appeal has been determined, at which time the defendant shall be given sixty (60) days in which to file for review of the sentence. Id. In other words, filing an application within sixty days of the imposition of sentence is not a prisoner’s only route to SRD review. A prisoner may also seek SRD review within sixty days of the determination of a direct appeal, or within sixty days of the determination of a petition for postconviction review.