Opinion ID: 888461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶ 10 A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel presents mixed questions of law and fact that we review de novo. State v. Kougl, 2004 MT 243, ¶ 12, 323 Mont. 6, ¶ 12, 97 P.3d 1095, ¶ 12. ¶ 11 While the parties have not raised an issue regarding the correct standard of review, we take this opportunity to once again clarify that generally we review the imposition of a sentence for legality only, examining whether it is within the statutory parameters. State v. Vernes, 2006 MT 32, ¶ 27, 331 Mont. 129, ¶ 27, 130 P.3d 169, ¶ 27. In the past, this Court has stated that we will review a sentence for abuse of discretion. E.g. State v. Richards, 285 Mont. 322, 324, 948 P.2d 240, 241 (1997). In 1999, the Court held that we will only review sentences for legality, and we will not apply an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Montoya, 1999 MT 180, ¶ 15, 295 Mont. 288, ¶ 15, 983 P.2d 937, ¶ 15. Since deciding Montoya, we have established two narrow exceptions to this rule. First, if a defendant is sentenced to serve less than one year of actual incarceration, we will review a sentence both for legality and for abuse of discretion. State v. Herd, 2004 MT 85, ¶ 22, 320 Mont. 490, ¶ 22, 87 P.3d 1017, ¶ 22. Second, we will review for an abuse of discretion the reasonableness of conditions imposed on probation. State v. Ashby, 2008 MT 83, ¶ 9, 342 Mont. 187, ¶ 9, 179 P.3d 1164, ¶ 9. ¶ 12 Since deciding Montoya the Court has occasionally referred to the abuse of discretion standard in considering the appeal of a sentence. E.g. State v. McCaslin, 2004 MT 212, ¶ 17, 322 Mont. 350, ¶ 17, 96 P.3d 722, ¶ 17. We overrule our prior cases to the extent they state that this Court will review for an abuse of discretion a sentence which imposes one year or more of actual incarceration and which does not fall within either of the exceptions noted above. [1] ¶ 13 Herman argues that the procedure employed at her sentencing hearing violated her constitutional rights. This presents a question of law which we review de novo. State v. Mason, 2003 MT 371, ¶ 19, 319 Mont. 117, ¶ 19, 82 P.3d 903, ¶ 19.