*1 STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel.,
GEORGE HAROLD HOLT,
Petitioner, DISTRICT COURT OF THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE
OF MONTANA, COUNTY OF THE RAVALLI,
HONORABLE JEFFREY H. LANGTON,
Presiding and SENTENCE REVIEW DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
MONTANA, HONORABLE RICHARD G. PHILLIPS, Chairman,
Respondents. No. 99-691. February
Submitted on Briefs
2000.
May 30,
Decided
2000.
Background assault, pled guilty felony Holt to the of sexual in viola- offense 45-5-502, pursuant agreement. September On plea tion 1999, ten-year suspended On Holt received sentence. October transcript the District for a of the sen- moved Court tencing hearing purposes initially “for of Sentence court Review.”The granted request, stayed later order pending but its determina- counsel, necessity transcript. tion for the In letter to Holt’s stated, “it right court has occurred to me that Mr. Holt to such has no review the Sentence Review Division since he has been sen- D.O.C., tenced to or the probationary but rather received a sentence.” an application for sentence on Holt.filed review Novem- ber 1999. application, The Sentence Review Division denied his *3 determining that Holt did not qualify sentence review because entirety “his sentence was in and its no actual involved incarceration.”
Discussion Did the Sentence Division properly interpret Review ¶4 § excluding as eligibility Holt from for sentence re- because view his sentence he is not incarcerated in prison? the state MCA, argues 46-18-903(1), that require § does not that he be eligible argues
incarcerated to be for sentence He that review. 46-18-901(1), MCA, misinterpreted Sentence Review Division § denying applicable rules in him sentence review because he was not argues interpretation incarcerated. Holt that if the Division’s correct, the sentence review violate statutes the due equal protection clauses of the States Montana the United Constitutions. an Sentence Review Division is arm of the Montana Su- Court,
preme consisting of Section judges. three district court
38 Di- the Sentence
46-18-901(1), legislature granted MCA. The its review of expedite will “any rules which authority adopt vision 46-18-903(1), 46-18-901(4), MCA. Pursuant Section sentences.” MCA, prison year or more in a term of
Any sentenced to may within competent jurisdiction by any court of the district with the clerk of imposed... file sentence was date such application rendered an county judgment was in the court division. by the review of the sentence for review Division, for sen- denying Holt’s The Sentence 46-18-903(1), MCA, review “sentence review, under § found that (or other term sentenced only to defendants applicable commitment) actually taken the defendant is whereby of D.O.C. type custody.” into construction, consider the fol statutory rules of Under the
lowing factors:
(1) as a whole? with the statute interpretation consistent Is the (2) con- legislature intent of the reflect the interpretation Does the language of the statute? sidering (3) results? so as to avoid absurd reasonable interpretation Is the (4) the statute administration of charged with the agency Has an on the statute? placed a construction Co. v. Cremer Montana Power omitted). (citations inter- The Sentence Review
483, in- excluding person who is not pretation rules of review, with Montana’s comports carcerated from sentence the sen- is consistent with statutory construction: legislature, whole, the intent of the reflects tence review statutes as be- results, entitled to deference harsh and is unduly avoids absurd administra- charged with the Division is cause the Sentence Review review statutes. tion of the sentence whole, statutes, support considered as The sentence the intent of and reveal Review Division’s
Sentence persons only intended for review was legislature that sentence mandates actually incarcerated. the site of Lodge, Deer meetings at the Division hold (Rule Divi- the Sentence Review 12 of Rules of Prison. Montana State *4 conve- or another Correctional Center the Women’s sion also includes meetings.) Review Division’s to hold the Sentence place nient Di- the Sentence Review finality the of regarding decisions, that a decisions be requires copy vision’s Division’s others, to, among mailed the officer of the institution “principal Finally, the sentenced] Rule 16 of [the confined.” sen- reviewing Rules of the Sentence Review Division states that tences, shall whether the of- “the Sentence Review Division consider ... sen- adequately by suspended fender could have been dealt with combination, tence ....” the foregoing In statutes and rules evidence the the Sen- legislature support intent of and the ofthe interpretation per- Division that sentence review is not available to wholly sons whose sentences are incar- cerated. filing for the of an application
¶9 Section allows days sentence review within 60 from the im- date sentence was posed. whereby This statute does not lend itself an interpretation defendant could twice-upon seek sentence review the initial sus- pended upon If again suspension. sentence revocation of the hold with that a judg- defendant can seek of the initial review sentence, ment of suspended defendants whose sentences are subsequently beyond days, revoked would be time-barred from applying Certainly, sentence review. upon revo- cation deserving is the more of The Divi- review. Sentence Review 46-18-903(1), MCA, sion’s interpretation of avoids such an § absurd and unduly by excluding harsh result wholly suspended sentences Rather, logical interpretation review. the more is that a defen- dant, upon suspension, revocation of has 60 seek ofhis or her sentence. interpretation Sentence § respect is entitled to deference and because charged by
Division legislature with the administration Montana’s sentence review State v.Midland statutes. See Materials (citations omitted). 70, 622 Co. 1322, 1325 We hold that Sentence Review Division’s 46-19-903(1),MCA,is correct and is consistent with rules ofstatu tory construction. argued
¶11 Holt has further if the even Sentence Review Divi- 46-18-903(1),MCA, correct, sion’s such an inter- pretation violates the due clauses of United States Montana Constitutions. We have held that the challenges standard of review for constitutional enact- ments is: *5 constitutionality prima of enactment is
[T]he
facie
in its
will be made unless
presumed,
every intendment
favor
unconstitutionality appears beyond a reasonable doubt.
347,
(citation
345,
¶12 such, pro there no due voluntarily created. As is legislature has legisla discretion ofthe right cess to sentence review. It is within the to ture under what circumstances and conditions allow to determine subject matter to sentence review. The State’s discretion is not justice so principle due concerns unless “’it offends some of ranked people in the traditions and conscience our as to be rooted 37, 43, 116 U.S. S.Ct. Egelhoff (1996), fundamental.’” Montana 518 2017, 2013, 361, 135 v. New York (quoting L.Ed.2d 368 Patterson 281). (1977), 197, 201-02, 97 2319, U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Because 53 statutory relatively recent the due right origin, sentence review is a do process clauses of the United States Montana Constitutions not that at all and do not limit demand sentence review be available legislature’s restriction of sentence review to those defendants actually incarcerated. are only argues granting right Holt also to sentence review actually to are and not to those with those felons who incarcerated protection clauses of wholly suspended equal sentences violates The prerequisite the United States and Montana Constitutions. first identifying claim is the classes in meritorious similarly determining they are situated. See volved and whether 23, 32, 951 (1997), 1365, 1371. Holt’s 287 Mont. Matter of S.L.M. wholly fails with a sus equal protection claim because he-a felon are in pended similarly sentence-is not situated to those felons who Renee, 527, MT 983 P.2d In State v. 294 Mont. carcerated. felony similarly are not held that misdemeanor and offenders it was a denial of equal protection purposes situated for and that deny sentence review. equal protection to misdemeanor offenders to Renee, subjects him some 38. While Holt’s ¶ are actu liberty, similarly loss he not situated those felons who hold, no ally accordingly,that there is merit Holt’s incarcerated. We equal protection challenge. petition supervisory 14 Holt’s for writ of control GRANTED request reverse the Sentence Review Divi-
we order that Holt’s DENIED. of his sentence is denying sion’s Order TURNAGE, HUNT, REGNIER, JUSTICES CHIEF JUSTICE and NELSON concur. GRAY dissenting.
JUSTICE TRIEWEILER order, majority’s I would reverse opinion I dissent from the denying order review of the sentence the Sentence Review Division’s Defendant, George Harold Holt. by the District Court on the imposed guidelines interpret- majority opinion sets forth various guidelines to its ing applies statutes and then those However, ignored the majority primary MCA. statutory requires statutory rule of that when lan- application which face, it and extrane- guage applied on its must be as written ous aids to irrelevant. Carey In Gulbrandson v.
573, 577, we said: construing
Our function in is to effectuate applying statutes (1995), legislature’s the intent. United Mont. States Brooks 136, 138-40, 890 759, 761. intent, To determine we plain meaning first look to the of the in the words used statute. Stansbury (1993), v.Lin 257 Mont. 848 P.2d 511. If legislature’s by the intent can plain language be determined the used, may go apply the words not further and other means ofin terpretation. County Co-op Grazing Prairie State District v.Kalfell Ranch, 117, 124-25, Inc.
Furthermore, 1-2-101, MCA, in provides part: statute,
In judge simply the construction of a the office of the in in ascertain and declare what is terms or substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted to omit what has been inserted. case, majority 18 In the has relied on extraneous aids to inter- this a and needs no
pret plain interpretation. statute which is on its face process, majority ignored In the the the terms and sub- provision stance of the statute and instead added a which was not in- by legislature. cluded part in that: provides MCA relevant in
Any person year sentenced to a term of 1 or more by any competent jurisdiction may court of within 60 from the file the clerk ofthe district imposed,... date such sentence was with county judgment court in the in which was rendered an by for of the sentence the review division. year a of “1 or more in the
George Harold Holt was sentenced to term that: judgment specifically provides The District Court prison.” state State imprisoned Defendant shall in the Montana Prison [T]he be (10) Montana, years, a of ten said sen- Lodge, period at Deer following on the conditions: tence to be Therefore, by the plain Holt satisfied the criteria established by the Sentence terms of for sentence review However, majority language has added to that Review Division. actually incarcerated requirement applicant that an for review be requirement at the time he or she seeks review. That does exist the statute as written. statute, plain language In the effect order avoid majority opinion being talks consistent with the sentence re- about whole, reflecting legislature, as a the intent of the
view statutes However, are rele- avoiding unduly harsh results. none ofthose factors statutory language plain applied vant when and can be as written. Furthermore, majority if the extraneous factors relied on relevant, majority creates absurd or un- opinion were is the case, duly harsh results. In Holt had 24 conditions example, attached to the ofhis sentence. The conditions affected his suspension liberty property rights. They and his taxation substantial included costs, victim, requirement defense restitution to the that he sell his neighborhood, personal his limitations on the home and move from beverages can he can con- property possess, he limitations on sume, requirements rights privacy, require- that he waive post identifying ment that he a notice outside his home himself as prohibited engaging sex offender. He is also in activities that may freely other his association is engage adults freedom of substantially A in the re- any limited. violation of condition results *7 suspension vocation of the of his sentence and actual incarceration period years. years at the state for a of ten Holt is now over 84 age. primary objective of the Sentence Review Division is “provide uniformity and to ensure sentencing appropriate when adequately ad- public that the interest of the and the defendant Ct. Sentence Rev.Div.The dressed the sentence.” Rule Mont. S. just sentence as it is to a sen- purpose applicable less in- being through served incarceration. Defendant no suspended. length just terest in the of a sentence because has been substantially curtailed especially That is true where his liberties are length entire during as a condition of and sentence. reasons, I majority opinion. For these I dissent from the would order which denied review of
reverse the Sentence Review Division’s Holt’s sentence.