STATE v TENAS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 95-084 IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANETTE TENAS, Defendant APPEAL FROM: and Appellant. District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lake, The Honorable C.B. McNeil, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Roberta Hoe, Attorney at Law, Polson, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Collins, Assistant Attorney General, Montana; Kim Christopher, Lake County Mitchell A. Young, Deputy Lake County Polson, Montana Submitted Filed: on Briefs: Decided: Pamela P. Helena, Attorney, Attorney, July August 13, 1995 17, 1995 Justice Karla M. Gray delivered Danette Tenas (Tenas) appeals Twentieth Judicial by Alford plea District discretion A complaint July 9, that, Tenas of negligent homicide, a misdemeanor. trial the of Lake County offense of Court negligent not guilty an omnibus rights, was scheduled hearing and, the center Tenas with line to both was held was the offenses vehicular and related later, caused the An information and negligent a felony, Tenas pleaded across charging on MCA. The complaint collision. a number of continuances trial Court a vehicle a head-on in the District Court Tenas. on or about May 2, 1992, Tenas negligently filed After We affirm. the District of § 45-5-104, of a human being by driving later is whether with in violation by the on her conviction homicide. in the Justice charging on Highway 93 and causing jury of negligent in sentencing a felony, alleged Lake County, on appeal was filed 1993, homicide, death issue of the Court. from the Judgment entered Court, of the offense The dispositive abused its the Opinion assault, charges. waivers of speedy on March 16, 1994. rescheduled for October of (State) A 13, 1994. In September proposed Guilty of plea agreement Plea and Waiver would plead would dismiss agreed to Correctional guilty 1994, State and Tenas filed to the negligent recommend a sentence all a Verified homicide vehicular with Montana of but 2 10 agreement, charge assault years filed a Request to Enter Under the plea of Rights. the negligent Facility, the Tenas and the State The State charge. in 90 days suspended the Women's and the 90 days to be recommend Tenas any in the that she Lake County she sentence agreed State's the served felt was would recommendation. plea agreement, enter plea, In Tenas a not stating that the plea Court Tenas' by the State or Tenas entered an The court to dismiss the presentence negligent Thereafter, including that treatment center issues and the vehicle the were closed either arranged from in the serve the in an in-patient for in negligent motion ordered under a Tenas and suspended 3 and dependency she sustained and option. conditions, chemical against all her oral to in the arose. argument 10 years were in the the but 90 days, which The court Jail. program of rehabilitation both of sentencing imposition certain charges 30 days her that she contends treatment either that by Tenas. and of recommended Lake County last than State's charge support sentenced Facility guilty agreement, of the testimony Court plea charge appropriate the hearing, the rejected her greater granted addressing which sentencing and paid an of of recommended the years head injury Correctional could five capable to be served Tenas she The District presented. Women's summary, enter that to a brief for and (PIR). filed she collision At report deferred withdraw be assault In be not plea, Tenas recommendations. sentence the State Court the to trial. than vehicular investigation to free excess District accepted plea accepted in to would Alford homicide. the and proceed less was The sentenced subsequently recommended then be be allowed sentence Tenas appropriate. event would guilty The District not Jail; provided that 90 nonsuspended or on house Conditions were arrest days if imposed she for the full period The of court's conformed to both took a prior the the parameters drinking moved to stay District Sentencing 203, imposed of will (1993), homicide person remorse Tenas of for appealed. judgment and for release Court granted the 90 days applicable applicable the sentencing 4 261. of for 10 years of 10 years' but in v. State negligent sentencing authorizes 45-5-104(3), to be served we offense exceeding the statute. sentence See 255, The statute all 265 Mont. statutes, parameters with determine (1994), discretion. defines not to Where the 865 P.2d sentence Facility, and that of Section or both. Correctional the sentencing discretion Alexander statutory term in omitted). 352, offense. Court's v. abuse 342, the any broad of MCA, the District within an of $50,000, suspended find forth discretion (citation limits for imprisonment the 352 45-5-104, convicted Women's - absence The District its State 262 Mont. and sets exceeding granted the not Section __-,-.,.-.,.- the for The court any expressed appeal. are 345, within is Losson well of it and provided and relative and driving. abuse punishment. 875 P.2d generally that that rehabilitation. lack Court judges appropriate 192, of were agreement youth execution pending sentence motion. Did the Tenas? the plea for and her by her caused the Tenas' record on her own recognizance the for of the consideration criminal Tenas reasons sentence. and an opportunity into death suspended stated punishment also Tenas' a sentence or MCA. a fine It is imprisonment 90 days Lake a of County not clear in that Jail, the term is Nor does the court's agreement between the State recommended all but County 90 days and sentenced her 10 years' days a to the plea agreement, imprisonment, be served with in the Lake recommendations, accepted the parameters, District of as plea it as agreement affirmatively do. that request to terms to that own sentencing its advances contention of The court within the Pursuant and those made Tenas Tenas not and Tenas. agreement. itself violate a sentence Tenas by the obligated State suspended Jail. permitted the sentence for the variety a deferred of arguments Court erred imposition of in in support of her not her Her sentence. granting arguments are persuasive. Tenas be fully that argues that informed properly may influence on asserted the prepared material she argues that in does review our statutory of decision. information a or the as (Weaver), have been MCA, PIR, information some form responsibility aggravating Weaver in its or 5 46-18-112, information meet and biased should that included not sentencing the Dave contends particularity did inaccurate by generally certain court on any mitigating is based PIR the she in PIR indicate This by the well as not the of in omitted While Tenas inclusion statute is prepared; compliance of with assert PIR Weaver a lack argument contained the does required fashion circumstances included. requires to with not nor the requirements. Relying 120, rev'd 291, 292-93, on State on other v. McPherson grounds, 811 P.2d 1261, (1989), see State 1262, 5 and v. the 236 Mont. Staat 484, (1991), Fourteenth 771 P.2d 248 Mont. Amendment's due process her clause, sentence Weaver's and predicated failure resulted in include head her stated the that The of court In presented the injury, about her medical with together reliance to have She contends condition his and that history erroneous lack of on inaccurate remorse, information she letter a to hearing, present her of her in the comment Weaver and fully addressing that by objections PIR and expressing by to opinion Weaver doctor Tenas relating expressions cross-examined from contained with to her addition, sentencing and corrections related permitted information the comments which a three-page disagreement at that, she had numerous corrections. of information Court's reflects a number Weaver. she was entitled her. record PIR, that information. psychological the District sentencing argues on correct to about The also closed current opinions in Tenas and portions the doctor's Tenas was not remorseful. While McPherson be predicated that presenting at a district 123-24. information within opinions Here, Tenas' primarily province of of establishing information. that it defendant. McPherson, regarding differences of sentencing therefore, the sentence also and place and give We conclude, information, assertions on the defendant's to be correct on the and interpretations appropriate. burden inaccuracies a criminal correct court rest the that on substantially we presume of requires District court them weigh such weight Court the Tenas relied has burden 771 P.2d inaccurate opinion. to that states It was conflicting as it not found met on inaccurate her Tenas argues that laws also entitled protection of basis that an allegedly a sentence. She cites sentence the involving identical Moreover, u about no such Review State v. inequity Division; Almanza (1987), that every imposition argument--like the that Tenas of review her fact agreement. 229 Mont. of an authority. or disparity we do not on the such proposition ignores her plea equal received requires protection with the the to sentence defendant circumstances equal right a deferred for and we know of in accordance any argument to situated arguments--totally sentenced Sentence her no authority Tenas' constitutional constitutional similarly similar sentence her her such 383, other she can present sentence matters 386, was to the on appeal. 746 P.2d 1089, and unusual under 1090-91. contention Tenas' the constitution have held that also that a guidelines prohibition against Peck (1993), Finally, 195, 542 the for circumstances such we a sentence upon years 25. of That age for statute as those not See, at 304, v. imposition offense. issue here Court sentence Burris, in under favor a person 542 P.2d therefore, has In Burris, misplaced. of and, State 168 Mont. this of presumption conviction e.9., (19751, that us is Amendment 306. Burris proposition first statutory Eighth 865 P.2d statutory a drug-related is the now before the the punishment. deferring specific deferred 4, We repeatedly within violate on State for a preference falls not reliance 1223, addressed which 1, cruel discussion. and unusual 263 Mont. P.2d indicated cruel is little does Tenas' sentence requires sentence sentencing v. her of under at Burris a 21 1224is totally inapplicable. The sentence parameters set negligent plea the 123. abuse in forth District § 45-5-104(3), Court The sentence with agreement District substantially at the homicide. Tenas' that of the Court correct is discretion in within that statutory the has offense of parameters the information her. sentencing the for Tenas on we conclude its also sentencing Therefore, within MCA, State. relied in is of not established which was See McPherson, the District not 771 P.2d Court did not Tenas. Affirmed. Pursuant to 1988 Internal precedent with to the Montana Section Operating and shall Clerk of I, Paragraph Rules, this be published the Law Week, Supreme State 3 (c), decision by its Court Reporter We Concur: 8 Montana shall filing Supreme not an be cited as a public and by a report st Publishin of Court as document its result
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.
