Opinion ID: 887906
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mandatory Minimum Sentence Exceptions

Text: ¶ 38 Section 45-5-502(3), MCA, provides for a mandatory minimum prison sentence of four years, or a maximum of 100 years, upon conviction of sexual assault on a minor. However, § 46-18-222(6), MCA, provides for an exception to that mandatory minimum sentence if the District Court determines that treatment of the offender in a local community affords a better opportunity for rehabilitation of the offender and for the ultimate protection of the victim and society. . . . Rogers argues the District Court should have applied this exception because, among other things, Rogers' history of sexual assault was limited to the present offenses, which he argues were relatively minor, and for which Lemons only classified Rogers as a Level I sex offender. Rogers also points out that none of Lemons' conclusions came from the two tests in which Rogers raised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and from which the State characterized Rogers as uncooperative. Therefore, Rogers argues, the exception to the mandatory minimum sentence applies to him. ¶ 39 Despite Rogers' arguments, this Court has consistently held that the exceptions set forth at § 46-18-222, MCA, do not apply in cases in which the district court sentences the offender to more than the minimum sentence. Legg, ¶ 49 (citations omitted). In other words, the exceptions only apply if the district court is predisposed to sentencing the defendant to the mandatory minimum sentence. State v. Zabawa, 279 Mont. 307, 317, 928 P.2d 151, 157 (1996). In this case, the mandatory minimum sentence was four years imprisonment. Section 46-18-222(3), MCA. The District Court sentenced Rogers to twenty years imprisonment, ten suspended. Thus, the District Court sentenced Rogers to more than the minimum sentence, making the exception for which Rogers argues inapplicable. Moreover, the State correctly points out that even if Rogers had received the minimum sentence, he presented no evidence that he could be better treated or rehabilitated in the community. In fact, the opposite was true: the District Court accepted Lemons' conclusion that there were no treatment options available to Rogers within the community.