553 P.3d 9
Mont.2024Background
- Wolfblack was initially sentenced in 2003 in Flathead County for felony theft: 10 years with 5 years suspended.
- In 2010, he was separately convicted and sentenced in Lewis and Clark County for felony sexual intercourse without consent: 10 years with 5 suspended.
- In 2010, Flathead County filed to revoke his suspended theft sentence; he admitted the violations, and was resentenced to a 5-year suspended term, ordered to run consecutively to his SIWOC sentence.
- A second revocation petition was filed in 2022 after the SIWOC sentence was completed; Wolfblack moved to dismiss as untimely.
- The District Court denied the motion, holding the theft sentence ran consecutively under Montana statute; Wolfblack appealed, challenging the legality of the consecutive sentence upon revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose consecutive | Court lacked authority; sentence upon revocation cannot exceed original | State: § 46-18-401, MCA, presumes sentences run consecutively, so no new or greater sentence imposed | Court: District Court lacked authority; revocation governed by § 46-18-203, MCA, not general statute, so consecutive term was invalid |
| Statute governing sentencing upon revocation | Cites § 46-18-203, MCA, as the exclusive statute for revocation sentences | Cites § 46-18-401, MCA, which generally governs consecutive sentences | § 46-18-203, MCA, is paramount for revocations; § 46-18-401, MCA, does not apply upon revocation |
| Whether revocation increased original sentence length | Imposing consecutive term added years to original theft sentence | No increase; sentences had to be consecutive by law | Consecutive revocation sentence improperly increased total sentence beyond original |
| Timeliness of State’s 2022 petition | Revocation sentence expired; petition untimely | Sentence was still running due to consecutive nature | Revocation sentence expired in 2015; petition untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Seals, 336 Mont. 416, 156 P.3d 15 (Mont. 2007) (revocation of suspended or deferred sentences is governed by § 46-18-203, MCA, not the general consecutive/concurrent sentencing statute)
- State v. Adams, 371 Mont. 28, 305 P.3d 808 (Mont. 2013) (general consecutive/concurrent designation statute does not apply in revocation proceedings)
- State v. Frazier, 306 Mont. 358, 34 P.3d 96 (Mont. 2001) (upon revocation, court may not impose greater sentence than originally authorized)
- State v. McGuire, 260 Mont. 386, 860 P.2d 148 (Mont. 1993) (only a sentencing court imposing a later sentence can determine concurrent or consecutive status)
- State v. Southwick, 339 Mont. 281, 169 P.3d 698 (Mont. 2007) (illegal sentencing provisions are only invalid as to the excess)