No explanation for harsher sentence

2003 MT 253
STATE OF MONTANA,v.
TIMOTHY T. HALL,

The issues on appeal are as follows:
1. Did the District Court err in denying Hall’s pre-trial motion to suppress evidence?
2. Did the District Court err in denying Hall’s proposed jury instructions?
3. Did the District Court err in denying Hall’s motion for a directed verdict on the
close of evidence? Was there sufficient evidence to support the convictions for theft?
4. Did the District Court violate Hall’s due process rights by punishing him for going
to trial, when the sentence given was harsher than that offered before trial?
We affirm the convictions and remand for re-sentencing.
Although the District Court noted that Hall posed a substantial danger to the public
if he was not incarcerated for a substantial period of time, it did not explain why the sentence
was more onerous than the sentence offered before trial.
When the District Court failed to specifically justify having the eleven-year sentence run consecutively rather than
concurrently with the forgery sentence, it failed to satisfy the Baldwin standard which requires an explanation for imposing a sentence more harsh than that offered in plea negotiations.
The convictions are affirmed, and the matter is remanded for re-sentencing.