Archive | Probation revocation

RSS feed for this section

State v. Graves

State v. Graves, 2015 MT 262 (Sept. 1, 2015) (Shea, J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by revoking Graves’ suspended sentence before it began; (2) whether Graves was required to sign his conditions of probation before he was subject to those conditions; (3) whether the district court erred in denying the admission of Graves’ out-of-state court records; (4) whether the district court could impose a sentence to the MSP when revoking a 1995 sentence to the DOC; (5) whether the district court erred by denying Graves credit for time served while incarcerated in Oregon after the revocation petition had been filed but before he was transferred to Montana.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) no, as the reason he didn’t sign was that he escaped; (3) yes; (4) no; (5) yes.…

In the Matter of ADT

In the Matter of ADT, 2015 MT 178 (June 30, 2015) (McKinnon, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court improperly applied new probationary conditions prior to finding ADT violated the terms of his youth court disposition; and (2) whether the district court properly determined that ADT violated conditions of his youth court disposition.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes.

Affirmed

Facts: ADT was adjudicated a delinquent youth and juvenile offender in February 2012, upon his admission to one count each of sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent. The most suitable place for ADT to receive sex offender treatment was Pine Hills. However, because ADT was 10 months away from turning 18, and the program normally takes 17-24 months, Youth Court services was concerned he would not be able to complete the program.…

State v. Sullivant

State v. Sullivant, 2013 MT 200 (July 23, 2013) (5-0) (McGrath, C.J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the “remainder of the probation sentence” includes the period during which the defendant absconded from probation; (2) whether the district court should hold an evidentiary hearing on the reasons for Sullivant’s absconding; and (3) whether the re-imposition of fines and fees varied from the original sentence and should be stricken.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) this was not raised below, and the Court declines to invoke plain error review; and (3) no.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded