State v. Sullivant, 305 P.3d 838

Background

In 2000 Sullivant pleaded guilty to two felony DUIs and several misdemeanors; in 2001 the District Court imposed 26 months’ total incarceration followed by nine years’ supervised probation and fines/fees.
Sullivant completed incarceration and began probation in 2002; by December 4, 2003, the State notified the court that he had absconded from supervision after alleged probation violations and a warrant was issued.
From 2003–2011 Sullivant committed crimes and served sentences in other states; a new arrest warrant was issued in 2011 and he was returned to Montana in August 2011.
In January 2012 the District Court found Sullivant violated probation, revoked his suspended sentence, denied credit for time on probation, reimposed unpaid fines/fees, and sentenced him to eight years in the Department of Corrections (194 days’ credit since return).
On appeal Sullivant argued: (1) the eight-year delay before arrest violated due process and warranted an evidentiary hearing (plain error); (2) the court could only impose the unexpired remainder of probation and the probationary period had expired; and (3) the written reimposition of fines/fees conflicted with the oral sentence and he was entitled to credit against fines for preconviction jail time.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court could sentence Sullivant to prison after revocation	State: absconding forfeited probation credit; substantial probation remained and incarceration was lawful	Sullivant: probation term had expired during the period between release (2002) and revocation (2012), so no remaining probation to revoke	Held: Absconded time (from Dec. 4, 2003) is excluded from "remainder of probation;" remand for resentencing to calculate remainder accordingly
Whether delay in arrest (2003–2011) requires remand for evidentiary hearing (due process/plain error)	Sullivant: State had duty to pursue return; delay may have prejudiced him; merits plain error review and remand for hearing	State: Sullivant did not preserve the issue below; no manifest miscarriage of justice shown to justify plain error review	Held: Declined plain error review; no evidentiary remand for the delay
Whether original fines/fees could be reimposed in written judgment despite not being mentioned orally	State: unpaid fines/fees from 2001 remained in effect and could be noted in the written judgment	Sullivant: oral revocation judgment did not mention fines/fees, so they could not be reimposed in the written judgment	Held: Fines/fees from 2001 remained enforceable; written reimposition did not increase punishment; affirmed but remanded to clarify credit against fine for preconviction jail time
Whether Sullivant is entitled to credit against fines/fees for preconviction incarceration	Sullivant: entitled to credit for days served prior to sentencing	State: concedes statutory credit applies and does not oppose remand for clarification	Held: Sullivant entitled to credit for preconviction incarceration (132 days noted); remand to determine exact credit against the $1000 fine

Key Cases Cited

State v. West, 194 P.3d 683 (Mont. 2008) (explained plain-error review and remand for evidentiary hearing on delay in revocation proceedings)
State v. Oie, 174 P.3d 937 (Mont. 2007) (statutory scheme governing DUI probation revocation discussed)
State v. Classen, 291 P.3d 1176 (Mont. 2012) (review limited to legality where sentence includes at least one year of incarceration)
State v. Senn, 66 P.3d 288 (Mont. 2003) (standard of review for probation revocation: preponderance of evidence and abuse of discretion)
State v. Boulton, 140 P.3d 482 (Mont. 2006) (probation characterized as an act of grace intended for rehabilitation)
State v. Moody, 148 P.3d 662 (Mont. 2006) (probation officer duties and importance of home visits and supervision)
State v. Johnson, 14 P.3d 480 (Mont. 2000) (written judgment confirming prior imposed fines does not increase punishment)