2007 MT 257
STATE OF MONTANA,v.
PAUL JAY SOUTHWICK,
Does the doctrine of res judicata bar this Court’s consideration of the merits of Southwick’s claim that the District Court imposed an illegal sentence?
2. Does Southwick’s failure to object to his sentences at either of his original sentencing hearings, or at the time the District Court revoked his suspended commitments, preclude review of his sentences?
3. Do the sentences imposed exceed the District Court’s statutory authority?
Because § 46-18-201(3)(d)(i), MCA (1999), is more burdensome that the 1997 version of the statute in effect at the time of the offenses, its application to Southwick violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws. Suiste, 261 Mont. at 253, 862 P.2d at 401.
We conclude, therefore, that Southwick’s sentence is facially illegal.
Paralegal Mark Anthony Given has spent four years hand collecting every winning criminal case in the history of the Montana Supreme Court. A Montana Criminal Defense Attorney can find here in 15 minutes what would take days or even weeks to locate. This is a sample of the over 1,000 available winning cases, the rest will be available soon via pay site.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(103)
-
▼
April
(8)
- Odor of alchohol not probable cause
- right to petition the courts for re-designation;
- ex post facto error
- Unable to pay fines but able to pay attorney fees?
- erred in failing to specify amount of restitution
- Illegal "Assesments" at sentencing
- Miranda violation
- Shackles in the Courtroom violates Due Process
-
▼
April
(8)
No comments:
Post a Comment