Opinion ID: 883894
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the denial of credit for street time

Text: When the District Court sentenced Hardy, it denied him credit for his street time (the two years he spent in Utah on probation). Hardy asserts that the District Court arbitrarily denied him credit for his street time when it failed to sufficiently set forth its reasons for the denial in the record. Specifically, he alleges that the District Court did not comply with § 46-18-201, MCA, which states in relevant part: (4) If any restrictions or conditions imposed under subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b) are violated, the court shall consider any elapsed time and either expressly allow part or all of it as a credit against the sentence or reject all or part as a credit. The court shall state its reasons in the order.... The record, however, does not support Hardy's contention. In its amended judgment, the District Court stated: 7) That the reasons for this sentence are the Defendant's age, past record of numerous convictions, the Defendant's inability to stay out of trouble when not incarcerated, and the serious nature of the crimes committed in Utah and the four (4) underlying Burglary charges on which the defendant was convicted in this Court. The denial of credit for street time is an express provision of Hardy's sentence. The reasons for the sentence, therefore, include the reasons for the denial of credit for street time. The District Court adequately considered § 46-18-201, MCA, and sufficiently stated its reasons when it denied Hardy credit for his street time. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court was correct when it concluded that Hardy was not arbitrarily denied credit for his street time. We hold that the District Court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and that its conclusions of law were correct. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. GRAY, NELSON, ERDMANN and HUNT, JJ., concur.