State v. C. Jardee, 461 P.3d 108

Jardee was sentenced in 2014 on two partner/family assault felonies with prison terms largely suspended; he began serving the active portion in March 2017.
In August 2017 the State filed a petition to revoke his suspended sentence after multiple alleged condition violations (false address reporting, prohibited contact with a female, alcohol use, and unlawful firearm possession).
Jardee was arraigned September 5, 2017, released on bond, and later found to have violated the suspension by a preponderance of the evidence at a December 2017 hearing.
At disposition Jardee requested credit for approximately four months of "street time" (time spent free on bond while revocation proceedings were pending) under the 2017 version of § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA.
The District Court denied street-time credit; its oral pronouncement cited Jardee’s failure to report his true residence to probation and parole during the relevant period.
Jardee appealed, arguing the 2017 statute mandates credit unless there is a record or recollection of violations in the relevant period; the State argued Jardee’s overall pattern of noncompliance sufficed to deny credit.

Issue	Jardee's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by denying "street time" credit under § 46-18-203(7)(b) (2017)	The statute requires credit for elapsed time unless there is a record or recollection of violations during that specific period; no such record existed for the ~4 months on bond	Jardee’s pattern of repeated violations and circumstantial evidence support the denial; violations likely continued while on bond	Affirmed. Court held the 2017 statute requires actual record or recollection of violations in the relevant period; here probation officer testimony and the court’s oral findings showed Jardee failed to report his true residence during that time, so credit could be denied.

Mont. Sports Shooting Ass'n v. State, 344 Mont. 1, 185 P.3d 1003 (2008) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
City of Missoula v. Fox, 397 Mont. 388, 450 P.3d 898 (2019) (construe statute as whole and avoid absurd results)
State v. Triplett, 346 Mont. 383, 195 P.3d 819 (2008) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Johnson, 393 Mont. 320, 430 P.3d 494 (2018) (standard of review for revocation decisions; legal and factual findings reviewed differently)
Cantwell v. Geiger, 228 Mont. 330, 742 P.2d 468 (1987) (presume Legislature intended change when amending statute)
State ex rel. Dick Irvin, Inc. v. Anderson, 164 Mont. 513, 525 P.2d 564 (1974) (legislative intent in statutory construction)
State v. Kroll, 322 Mont. 294, 95 P.3d 717 (2004) (oral pronouncement of sentence is controlling when it conflicts with written judgment)