State v. Graves
2015 MT 262
| Mont. | 2015Background
- In 1995 Graves pled guilty to forgery and bail jumping and received 20 years with 10 years suspended; conditions required reporting to DOC/Probation and subjected him to revocation for violations.
- Graves escaped Mineral County Jail in 1996 before reporting or signing probation conditions; an interstate detainer led to an escape charge that was dismissed after Montana failed to try him within the IAD time limit.
- Graves subsequently lived under supervision and was convicted of offenses in other states; Montana took no action for ~14 years.
- In October–December 2011 Montana filed a petition to revoke the suspended sentence and a bench warrant; Oregon proceedings resulted in Graves being released to appear in Missoula on December 12, 2011, but Montana did not extradite him until May 8, 2013.
- At the revocation hearing Graves claimed he never knew he was on probation or obligated to report; the court revoked the suspension and sentenced him to 10 years at Montana State Prison with 172 days credit.
- On appeal the Montana Supreme Court affirmed some rulings, found harmless error on exclusion of certain out-of-state documents, vacated the MSP sentence (requiring DOC commitment sentencing under 1995 law), and ordered credit for time served from December 12, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May the State file a petition to revoke before the suspended period begins? | State: statute (as amended) permits filing before suspension period begins. | Graves: cannot revoke because suspended portion never began. | Held: Filing before suspension is permitted under the 2011 retroactive amendment; revocation before suspension began is valid. |
| 2. Must Graves have signed probation conditions before being subject to them? | State: escape prevented notice and signature; still subject to conditions. | Graves: due-process violation — he never received/signed conditions so cannot be held to them. | Held: No due-process violation; Graves escaped and cannot claim ignorance to benefit himself. |
| 3. Did exclusion of out-of-state records violate due process? | State: records irrelevant or not authenticated. | Graves: exclusion prevented him presenting documentary evidence that Montana knew his whereabouts. | Held: Exclusion was erroneous but harmless because it would not change outcome on reporting obligation. |
| 4. May court, on revocation of a 1995 DOC commitment with suspended time, sentence to Montana State Prison? | State: MSP sentence appropriate. | Graves: must be sentenced under 1995 statute — commitment to DOC, not MSP. | Held: Under precedent (Tracy) sentencing to MSP violates ex post facto when original commitment was to DOC; sentence vacated and remanded for proper DOC sentence. |
| 5. Is Graves entitled to credit for Oregon incarceration after Oregon released him to Montana (Dec 12, 2011) but before extradition? | Graves: time was directly related to Montana revocation and he was available Dec 12, 2011; should receive credit. | State: timing/discretion arguments. | Held: State unreasonably delayed extradition; Graves entitled to credit from Dec 12, 2011; remand to adjust credit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (sets minimum due-process protections for probation revocation)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (probation revocation process may consider informal evidence such as letters and affidavits)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due process defined as fundamental fairness)
- State v. Stiffarm, 359 Mont. 116, 250 P.3d 300 (Mont. 2011) (interpreting timing for filing petitions to revoke suspended sentences)
- State v. Tracy, 327 Mont. 220, 113 P.3d 297 (Mont. 2005) (on revocation, sentencing to MSP differs from DOC commitment; ex post facto concerns)
- State v. Finley, 317 Mont. 268, 77 P.3d 193 (Mont. 2003) (enumerating minimum due-process protections for revocation hearings)