Court Opinion

ID: 9365763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 00:04:47.977934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:47.587030
License: Public Domain

01/24/2023

                                          DA 21-0191
                                                                                           Case Number: DA 21-0191

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                          2023 MT 18N

STATE OF MONTANA,

               Plaintiff and Appellee,

         v.

CHRISTOPHER PARIS STOCKDALE,

               Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM:           District Court of the First Judicial District,
                       In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. BDC 2019-493
                       Honorable Michael F. McMahon, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

                For Appellant:

                       Karl Pitcher, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana

                For Appellee:

                       Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Bree Gee, Assistant Attorney
                       General, Helena, Montana

                       Kevin Downs, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Fallon Stanton, Deputy
                       County Attorney, Helena, Montana

                                                   Submitted on Briefs: January 11, 2023

                                                              Decided: January 24, 2023

Filed:

                                 Vir-6A.-if
                       __________________________________________
                                         Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion, shall not be cited and does not serve

as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2     Christopher Paris Stockdale appeals from the sentence imposed for his conviction

of possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute, a felony. Stockdale challenges

as illegal the length of the unsuspended portion of his commitment to the Department of

Corrections (DOC) and the District Court’s failure to award credit toward his sentence for

time served prior to sentencing. The State concedes the necessity of resentencing under

Stockdale’s first argument, and we reverse and remand herein.

¶3     Stockdale was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement on August 26, 2020,

following his sentencing in two revocation proceedings on other sentences. The combined

change of plea and sentencing hearing was conducted under COVID cautionary

procedures, and Stockdale and his attorney appeared by video from separate locations,

upon their consent. Although a written plea agreement had been prepared, it had not been

signed and was not submitted to the District Court. Instead, defense counsel explained that

she had reviewed the agreement with Stockdale. The District Court expressed reservations

about moving forward, but the parties had agreed to a sentencing recommendation and

Stockdale wished to proceed. The State had prepared a draft judgment. During the hearing,

no discussion was offered by the parties about credit for time Stockdale had served. The
                                                2
District Court sentenced Stockdale to a 20-year commitment to the DOC, with 10 years

suspended, and ordered the sentence to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in

Stockdale’s two revocation proceedings. No credit for time served was awarded for the

sentence imposed herein.

¶4       About three months after sentencing, Stockdale filed a pro se Motion to Modify

Sentence, which was followed by the filing of a Motion to Correct Judgment by his counsel.

Both requested the judgment be amended to award Stockdale credit for time he served prior

to sentencing, from October 17, 2019, to August 26, 2020. The State opposed and the

District Court denied the request, reasoning it lacked authority under § 46-18-116(3), MCA

(2019),1 to correct the judgment because the judgment was not “factually erroneous” where

it correctly reflected the court’s action of denying credit. The District Court further

reasoned that, even if Stockdale was awarded credit for time served, any time after June 10,

2020, when Stockdale’s first revocation sentence was imposed, would not qualify because

he was then being held on another sentence.2

¶5       Stockdale appeals, and argues the 10-year unsuspended portion of his DOC

commitment is illegal under § 46-18-201(3), MCA (“all but the first five years of the

1
    Stockdale’s offense was committed on October 17, 2019.
2
  The District Court did amend the written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement
recommendation that Stockdale be screened for chemical dependency and placed in an appropriate
treatment facility. The State had also opposed Stockdale’s separate request for “street time” credit,
arguing Stockdale was in continuous violation under his two sentences that were ultimately
revoked. That issue is not raised on appeal.

                                                 3
commitment to the department of corrections must be suspended.”). The State agrees and

concedes that Stockdale must be resentenced.

¶6     Stockdale also argues the District Court erred by failing to award him credit for time

served prior to his sentencing on this charge, from October 17, 2019, to August 26, 2020,

or 314 days. He acknowledges his counsel did not request the credit or object to the failure

to award it, and thus argues alternatively that, if the issue has been waived, his trial counsel

rendered ineffective assistance and there is no reason justifying a failure to request the

credit. The State concedes that Stockdale is entitled to credit for time served. However,

the State argues Stockdale’s credit should be limited to the time between October 17, 2019,

to June 10, 2020, or approximately 206 days,3 because Stockdale was then held under his

first revocation sentence, and this Court should overrule our decisions requiring a contrary

result in Killam v. Salmonsen, 2021 MT 196, 405 Mont. 143, 492 P.3d 512, and State v.

Mendoza, 2021 MT 197, 405 Mont. 154, 492 P.3d 509, despite our clearly stated

declination to do so in recent opinions in State v. Spagnolo, 2022 MT 228, ¶ 15, 410 Mont.

457, 520 P.3d 330 (“we reaffirm our holding in Killam”) and State v. Pitkanen, 2022 MT

231, ¶ 26, 410 Mont. 503, 520 P.3d 305 (“we again decline to revisit our precedent”). The

answer remains, no.

3
 In reply, Stockdale states, even under the State’s argument, properly calculated, Stockdale would
be entitled to 237 days of credit. However, we conclude Stockdale’s argument is correct.

                                                4
¶7     We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents

no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent

or modify existing precedent. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question

controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review.

¶8     Reversed and remanded for resentencing, and inclusion in the judgment of a credit

for time served of 314 days. The District Court may conduct such additional proceedings

for resentencing as it deems necessary, in its discretion.

                                                  /S/ JIM RICE

We concur:

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

                                              5