Opinion ID: 883571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: Did the District Court fail to appropriately consider and discuss alternatives to imprisonment for Eichenlaub? Eichenlaub contends that the District Court failed to appropriately consider and discuss alternatives to his imprisonment in violation of §§ 46-18-201(10), -225, -104(3), and -104(2), MCA (1991), and therefore, that his sentence should be vacated and his case remanded for resentencing. The State responds that the District Court's reasons for designating Eichenlaub a dangerous offender are sufficient to rule out alternatives to imprisonment. We agree. To require the District Court to consider alternatives to imprisonment and specify the reasons why those alternatives were not selected after the District Court has already designated a convicted felon a dangerous offender exalts form over substance. Of those criteria for determining whether nonviolent offenders should be sentenced to prison which are set forth in § 46-18-225, MCA, the most conclusive consideration is found in subparagraph (1) which refers to the needs of public safety. We conclude that the needs of public safety were adequately considered by the District Court when it set forth in its findings in support of its sentence the reasons why it considered Eichenlaub dangerous. Those findings include the following: (15) Anthony Eichenlaub is now 21 years of age, of low average intelligence with an 11th grade education, in good health, has never married but has three children whom he does not support, and very little work history or experience. He seems to acknowledge having a drinking and chemical dependency problem, and has previously gone through the alcohol treatment program at Galen State Hospital, but still continues to drink and create problems for himself by unlawful actions. (16) Mr. Eichenlaub has a lengthy juvenile record in Missoula County, including sexual intercourse without consent when he was 13 years old, and six misdemeanor convictions since becoming of age, including resisting arrest, and then a second DUI and two related misdemeanors in Lewis and Clark County while he was out on bond awaiting trial in this case. Tony's actions in this case involved physical abuse and restraint of a live-in girlfriend, Susan Maxie, and the evidence indicated he had also been physically violent toward his father. ... . (19) Neither defendant has shown any remorse whatever to the victims herein, and the attitude of both Carter and Eichenlaub in this whole proceeding has been one of disrespect for and defiance of the law and its officers, indifference to the needs of their children and families, continual complaining of the criminal justice system, unjustifiably placing the blame for what has happened to them on others, and seeing nothing wrong with their unlawful actions. As a result, and in view of their prior records, the court finds both defendants pose a very real and substantial threat to the public in general, and the victims of the present case in particular, and that they are dangerous offenders, which was stated orally at sentencing. (Emphasis added.) In addition, the court noted in its findings that both probation officers who testified at the sentencing hearing recommended prison terms for both defendants. By these findings, the District Court did, as a practical matter, satisfy the requirements of §§ 46-18-201(10) and -225, MCA. To remand to the District Court for further findings to the same effect would be redundant and would serve no practical purpose. For these reasons, we affirm the judgments and sentences of the District Court in their entirety. TURNAGE, C.J., and GRAY, HUNT, WEBER, NELSON and LEAPHART, JJ., concur.