State v. McCaslin, 260 P.3d 403

McCaslin pled guilty to one count of failure to register as a sexual or violent offender under a plea agreement.
At sentencing, both sides agreed McCaslin should receive 142 days of pretrial incarceration credit.
The District Court imposed a five-year sentence, suspended in full, with credit 142 days to apply against any future revocation.
The written judgment mirrored the order: credit for 142 days only toward future revocation time, not the current sentence.
McCaslin argued the 142 days should be credited against his fully suspended sentence, not a future revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credit allocation to current sentence	McCaslin should receive credit against the current fully suspended sentence.	State contends no current credit; credit only potential upon revocation.	Suspended sentence is a judgment of imprisonment; credit applied to current sentence.

State v. Kime, 308 Mont. 341, 43 P.3d 290 (Mont. 2002) (credit for time served to avoid indigent/nonindigent disparity)
In re Gray, 163 Mont. 321, 517 P.2d 351 (Mont. 1973) (deferred imposition not a judgment of imprisonment)
In re LeDesma, 171 Mont. 54, 554 P.2d 751 (Mont. 1976) (suspended vs deferred imposition distinction)
State v. Drew, 158 Mont. 214, 490 P.2d 230 (Mont. 1971) (distinction between suspended and deferred imposition of sentence)
State ex rel. Holt v. District Court, 2000 MT 142, 3 P.3d 608 (Mont. 2000) (eligibility for sentence review related to imprisonment requirement)
State v. Seals, 2007 MT 71, 336 Mont. 416, 156 P.3d 15 (Mont. 2007) (statutory interpretation and review standards)
State v. Herd, 2004 MT 85, 320 Mont. 490, 87 P.3d 1017 (Mont. 2004) ( legality review of sentences under 46-18-403)
State v. Brendal, 2009 MT 236, 351 Mont. 395, 213 P.3d 448 (Mont. 2009) (statutory interpretation methodology)
State v. Hernandez, 2009 MT 341, 353 Mont. 111, 220 P.3d 25 (Mont. 2009) (sentence legality standards)