State v. Stiffarm
2011 MT 9
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Stiffarm pleaded guilty to PFMA in 2004 and received a suspended sentence in 2005.
- In 2006, Stiffarm pled guilty to a separate felony and his PFMA suspended sentence was revoked for probation violations.
- Stiffarm began serving the DC-04-026 four-year sentence in 2009; the DC-06-010 suspended sentence remained pending and to commence later.
- Parole was granted June 9, 2009, while the DC-04-026 sentence was still running, delaying start of the DC-06-010 suspended sentence.
- State filed a petition to revoke the DC-06-010 suspended sentence on November 10, 2009, four days before the suspension would begin.
- The district court denied a motion to dismiss the petition and later revoked the suspended sentence in February 2010; Stiffarm appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was timely under § 46-18-203(2). | Stiffarm argues petition filed before suspension began voids jurisdiction. | State argues petition timely under plain language despite pre-suspension filing. | District court exceeded authority; petition filed before commencement is invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sullivan, 197 Mont. 395 (Mont. 1982) (pre-amendment interpretation of §46-18-203(2))
- State v. Ratzlaff, 172 Mont. 439 (Mont. 1977) (pre-amendment precedent on revocation timing)
- Christofferson v. State, 272 Mont. 518 (Mont. 1995) (first post-amendment consideration of timing)
- Vallier v. State, 301 Mont. 228 (Mont. 2000) (post-amendment reliance on pre-suspension timing)
- Morrison v. State, 341 Mont. 147 (Mont. 2008) (reaffirmed prior interpretation despite dissent)
- LeDeau v. State, 352 Mont. 140 (Mont. 2009) (upheld pre-suspension timing interpretation; dissent noted)