State v. E. Souther, 519 P.3d 1

Souther pled guilty to three offenses (misdemeanor PFMA; violation of an order of protection; witness tampering) as part of a plea agreement.
Original sentence (Feb 25, 2020): Count V — 2 years (all but 10 days suspended) with credit for 214 days; Count VI — 5 years (all suspended); Count I — 1 year (all but 1 day suspended). Counts I and VI were concurrent with each other and consecutive to Count V; Count V ordered to run first.
Souther was placed on probation, later found to have violated probation; the court revoked the suspended sentence and resentenced him to an aggregate seven-year term (5 + 2 consecutive), with 2 years suspended.
The district court credited Souther with 275 days of presentence incarceration and 278 days of elapsed time (total 553 days) applied against the aggregate consecutive sentence; Souther did not object below and agreed the arithmetic was correct.
Souther appealed, arguing the 553 days should have been credited against each count (i.e., applied to each sentence), rather than only once against the aggregate consecutive term. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether credits for presentence incarceration and elapsed time must be applied to each count when multiple sentences were imposed consecutively	State: district court correctly applied credit once against the aggregate consecutive sentence under revocation statute	Souther: presentence and elapsed-time credit should apply to each convicted count such that each sentence receives the credited days	Court: Credits under §46-18-203(7)(b) apply once to the aggregate of consecutive sentences; only concurrent sentences merge and receive credit against each sentence

State v. Seals, 336 Mont. 416, 156 P.3d 15 (distinguishes revocation proceedings from initial sentencing; limits application of general sentencing statutes)
State v. Tracy, 327 Mont. 220, 113 P.3d 297 (concurrent sentences operate simultaneously and merge; credit applies to each concurrent sentence)
State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 602 P.2d 997 (illegal sentences exceeding statutory authority may be reviewed on appeal even absent objection)
State v. Osborn, 378 Mont. 244, 343 P.3d 1188 (revocation is governed by §46-18-203 and its express provisions)
State v. Roberts, 356 Mont. 290, 233 P.3d 324 (§46-18-201 governs initial sentencing; revocation credit governed separately)
State v. Youpee, 391 Mont. 246, 416 P.3d 1050 (concurrent sentences merge for credit purposes)