Court Opinion

ID: 9889658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 22:07:02.357948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:58.046723
License: Public Domain

10/10/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                      Case Number: OP 23-0540

                                          OP 23-0540
                                                                        RILED
 DANIEL DURGLO,
                                                                         OCT 10 2023
                                                                       Bowen Greenwood
              Petitioner,                                            Cierk of Supreme Court
                                                                        State of Montana

       v.
                                                                         ORDER
 SGT. BRADLEY BRAGG,
 Lewis and Clark County Detention Center,

              Respondent.

       Daniel Durglo petitions this Court for habeas corpus relief, indicating that his
incarceration is illegal because his sentences are longer than Montana law allows. He states
that in one of his cases, he received a ten-year sentence, all suspended, to the Department
of Corrections (DOC), pursuant to § 45-6-301(7)(b)(i), MCA. He contends that the
maximum punishment is three years. He adds that his sentence was revoked. Durglo
requests that this Court overturn his sentence or that the DOC recalculate his sentence as
this Court directs. Durglo does not attach any supporting documentation.
       We secured available electronic documents. On March 6, 2019. the Lewis and Clark
County District Court accepted Durglo's guilty plea to felony theft and sentenced Durglo
to the DOC for a suspended, ten-year term, to run consecutively to his burglary sentence
from Lewis and Clark County.' On August 30, 2023, the Lewis and Clark County District
Court revoked his suspended sentence due to his recent conviction in the Lake County
District Court. The District Court committed Durglo to the DOC for a suspended, ten-year
terrn to run consecutively to his burglary sentence. The court also awarded credit for time

I In the Lewis and Clark County District Court, Durglo received a ten-year sentence with five years
suspended for felony burglary on February 21, 2018. On August 30, 2023, the court revoked this
sentence for burglary, imposing a five-year, DOC term and awarding both credit for time served
and elapsed time.
served from March 10, 2023 to August 30, 2023, and the court did not award credit for
street time, also known as elapsed time.
       Durglo misunderstands Montana law. He has a valid sentence. This Court points
out that Durglo committed the felony offense on December 24, 2016, and the 2015 version
of Montana statutes apply. Section 45-6-301(8)(b)(i), MCA (2015), provides that "a person
convicted of the offense of theft of property exceeding $1,500 in value . . . shall be fined
an amount not to exceed $50,000 or be imprisoned in a state prison for a term not to exceed
10 years, or both." The court sentenced him to the maximum term of ten years.
       Moreover, the District Court imposed a valid sentence upon revocation. Section 46-
18-203(7), MCA. "If the judge finds that the offender has violated the terrns and conditions
of the suspended sentence . . . and the violation is not a compliance violation, the judge
may[] . . . [] revoke the suspension of sentence and require the offender to serve either the
sentence imposed or any sentence that could have been imposed that does not include a
longer imprisonment or commitment term than the original sentence[.]" Section 46-18-
203(7)(a)(iii), MCA. Here, the District Court revoked the lawful sentence often years, and
imposed a suspended, ten-year term to the DOC. Durglo was not yet serving his suspended
sentence for theft, and thus, he received no elapsed time credit. Durglo received credit for
jail time served, and he is not serving a longer sentence upon revocation.
       Durglo cannot challenge his sentence upon revocation through this remedy. Section
46-22-101(2), MCA. This Court will not overturn his sentence. Durglo is not entitled to
a reduction or recalculation of his sentence. Therefore,
       IT IS ORDERED that Durglo's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
       The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record and to Daniel Durglo personally.
       DATED this lb day of October, 2023.

                                                                Chief Justice
                                              2
     e9.4 M ,.11L

         Justices

.3