STATE v MARTIN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 95-143 IN THE SUPREMECOIJRT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs DONALD MARTIN, Defendant APPEAL FROM: and Appellant. District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Russell G. Fagg, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Kelly J. Varnes; Hendrickson, Woodward, Billings, Montana Everson, Noenning & For Respondent: General, Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney Cregg Coughlin, Ass't Attorney General, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: June 29, 1995 July 25, 1995 Justice Karla M. Gray delivered Donald Martin the Opinion (Martin) Commitment entered by Yellowstone County, on its appeals the of the Court. from Thirteenth the Judicial Order Revoking Judgment District and Court, Suspended Sentence. We affirm. Martin pled guilty November of 1993. imprisonment and placed The terms The District him on probation of petition, of District Martin resentenced him to Corrections and Human Services (Department), in a community-based for five for a hearing of on the had violated on the the director institution the entirety, and revoked Martin years' petitioned After that in and conditions. subsequently probation committing correctional suspended terms assault him to five found of his placement felony sentence. conviction, 312, MCA, for Prison, (State) Court The court of sentenced on certain suspended and conditions a State offense Court Montana the the sentence. the in the Montana State State revocation to the suspended original the the assault Department pursuant to § 46-14- program or facility years. of Martin or appeals. Did the District Court abuse its Martin's suspended sentence? discretion in revoking Upon the filing revocation showing of a petition cause that the sentence, a district Section violation 203(6), defendant 46-18-203(l), by MCA. has violated court MCA. a preponderance If for the court may set The State of finds the that 2 probable a condition of a suspended a on hearing has the burden evidence. the defendant revocation. of proving Section violated a 46-l&?the terms and conditions range of of options, requiring sentence. The decision act grace of 1300, of of or it that § 46-18-203(7), district At the was filed, of misdemeanor 1994; the offenses license, DUI, to Great Falls while there, At testified not committed was arrested revocation hearing, to the convictions those that the Great Falls 3 the number on May 7 and July without that felony Martin's charge of--a he went officer charges; against and, assault. officer probation probation 3, a driver's year, probation with The whether suspended sentence Later on the Billings convictions. omitted); 825 P.2d at 206. driving of his he v. Lundquist convicted insurance. is been what is Lundquist, and charged that from the facts review in Billings the permission all 206 (citation of obstructing, 695 P.2d of a violation State to revoke Martin's included with dispute testified standard court's 388, not liberty." discretion. and no vehicle the "has had been charged with--and offenses 385, satisfied conduct a prior district sentence; 825 P.2d 204, Our the petition Martin the be reasonably 331, and imposed or cancels the existence he were given 329, sentence suspended probationer's abused its time the has a sentence sentence 212 Mont. find court MCA. within (1984), of MCA. court 46-18-203(7), need only would be if 251 Mont. (1992), Kern the suspended the original matter the court the the a suspended a condition is that record agreed v. The court a term necessary to revoke State 1301. to serve is sentence, revoking Section and discretion. suspended including the defendant any lesser the Martin officer Martin did also had been dismissed. The District violated State requiring that he comply evidence Martin argues revocation Billings that there because probation officer addition, that of Martin's all federal and State the court's probation he did a petition argument after those Indeed, arrest that prompted Falls charge of insufficient premised on the had prompted the evidence dismissal of probation the He testified, the Great is the convictions revocation. Falls and agreed that The to support stated, was the Great it laws. evidence consider for sentence finding. officer not convictions suspended at the hearing. Martin's which Billings so testified revocation charge the was insufficient his that seek the revocation the with enough to warrant dismissed. that supports convictions, serious found Rule #8, a condition uncontroverted the Court him to had been to support the officer in Great to Falls seek the revocation. Martin's argument convictions. officer That to sufficient Martin those as set suspended Court did not not above, for not the abuse its discretion sentence. 4 Billings to an absence finding him to are MCA, and Lundauist, Thus, the Court's convictions revocation. of cause the probation equate requiring § 46-18-203, basis does did condition forth District convictions light the District the sufficient in to support violated both unpersuasive revocation evidence Indeed, under seek is obey the undisputed they of that law. and, constitute we conclude in revoking that a the Martin's Did the District Court err in MCA, in resentencing Martin? At the testified revocation to stated his his way Martin could that Martin Martin's to probation the Department could not object probation mental needed help that § 46-14-312, Martin's over receive according way, hearing, concerns beliefs referencing officer condition. mentally He and the only help would be in an institution; District evaluated that it at Warm Springs provided to Martin agreed Court stating assessment, him. of the Martin appeals, asserting that did sentence probation best help could a term of five officer's under argues testimony, to created a limited to be object illegal Lenihan MCA. absent ordered pursuant to § Martin years. exception exceeding 184 Mont. MCA, renders objection to the waived his right While the State is would preclude regarding review statutory 338, our 602 P.2d this correct of a sentence 997. issue that review, mandates. the probation to appeal ordinarily or (1979), exception the we have alleged See State We apply v. that here. Section in its Martin § 46-20-104(2), failure that, on § 46-14-312, be unlawful. The State reliance to be and Commitment of the Department for officer's interest appropriate Judgment placement that the Martin's in order to the director MCA, for at Warm Springs. with was in The court's committed 46-14-312, evaluated director to the testimony. The have Martin the officer, that 46-14-312, Judgment MCA, to which and Commitment, relates 5 the District Court to sentencing referred a defendant who claims that, was suffering at the time from and 46-14-312, probation mental officer not relate July, premised Martin did not raise during mental the upon time basis it of the that MCA, in its the statutory reference here; claim the Martin's testimony ultimately offense; does of mental erred was in any provide not disease Court a or defect. in referring Judgment and Commitment. must be stricken did of the May and time assault the District he That testimony revocation original a determination is clear a regarding at the the officer's for to § 46-14-312, which such hearing. condition convicted, See §§ 46-14-311 concerns the revocation probation As a result, expressed merely at the sufficient that or defect. offenses or event, disease to Martin's 1994, of which a mental MCA. condition of the offense We conclude from the Judgment and Commitment. Pursuant court to § 46-20-701(l), based on error Judgment and Commitment 46-14-312, sentence credit MCA, Martin originally for regarding unless time his sentence served we do not reverse was prejudicial. is modified to delete essentially is the felony and discretion Once the the reference left with assault in the a the to § five-year conviction, Department with director placement. a district is authorized court--on or any lesser Court may modify reversing the error imposed for Such a sentence permits MCA, however, and remanding for § 46-18-203, revocation--to sentence. a judgment under Moreover, from which appeal further 6 reimpose it is the original clear is taken, proceedings. MCA, which that rather this than See § 46-20- MCA. We conclude 703(l), and Commitment established require as other Judgment by affecting Court's Court, Martin has substantial rights so as to this his not reversal. Court's the reference Judgment and Commitment to § 46-14-312, MCA, and is is modified affirmed to in all respects. Pursuant 1988 Internal precedent with under the District modified prejudice The District strike that, to Section Operating and shall the Clerk I, Paragraph Rules, this be published decision by its of the Supreme Court to Montana Law Week, State 3 (c), Reporter filing Montana Supreme Court shall not be cited as a public and by a report document of its and West Publishing as result Company.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
