State v. Harper

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Walker

    167 P.3d 879 (Mont. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    Denying due process challenge where the defendant "never challenged the accuracy of the PSI during his own testimony before the sentencing court" and the defendant "had ample opportunity to explain, argue, or rebut the information in the PSI."

    A sentencing court may "consider any relevant information relating to the nature and circumstances of the crime, the character of the defendant, the defendant's background and history, the defendant's mental and physical condition, and any other information that the sentencing court" deems to have probative force. State v. Harper, 2006 MT 259, ¶ 22, 334 Mont. 138, ¶ 22, 144 P.3d 826, ¶ 22. We have held that the sentencing court may consider "other acts, even those resulting in acquittal or which are dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain agreement."

  2. State v. Rosling

    342 Mont. 1 (Mont. 2008)   Cited 71 times

    Furthermore, a convicted criminal defendant has a due process right to be sentenced based on correct information. State v. Harper, 2006 MT 259, ¶ 18, 334 Mont. 138, ¶ 18, 144 P.3d 826, ¶ 18; State v. Mason, 2003 MT 371, ¶ 21, 319 Mont. 117, ¶ 21, 82 P.3d 903, ¶ 21. Thus, a parole-eligibility restriction that is not accompanied by written reasons or that is based on materially false information is illegal.

  3. State v. Phillips

    337 Mont. 248 (Mont. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that “juvenile records may be noted in a [presentence investigation report], and considered at sentencing”

    State v. Mason, 2003 MT 371, ¶ 21, 319 Mont. 117, ¶ 21, 82 P.3d 903, ¶ 21; Bauer v. State, 1999 MT 185, ¶ 20, 295 Mont. 306, ¶ 20, 983 P.2d 955, ¶ 20. If a defendant seeks to overturn a sentence, "the defendant has an affirmative duty to show the alleged misinformation is materially inaccurate." State v. Harper, 2006 MT 259, ¶ 18, 334 Mont. 138, ¶ 18, 144 P.3d 826, ¶ 18; State v. Bar-Jonah, 2004 MT 344, ¶ 120, 324 Mont. 278, ¶ 120, 102 P.3d 1229, ¶ 120. "Merely claiming the information is invalid is insufficient."

  4. State v. Edmundson

    373 Mont. 338 (Mont. 2014)   Cited 11 times

    A person convicted of a crime “has a due process right to be sentenced based on correct information.” State v. Harper, 2006 MT 259, ¶ 18, 334 Mont. 138, 144 P.3d 826 (citing State v. Bar–Jonah, 2004 MT 344, ¶ 120, 324 Mont. 278, 102 P.3d 1229). The “rigorous standards” of accuracy required in an original sentencing proceeding “are equally as important when the trial court is passing upon the state's motion to revoke a deferred or suspended sentence.”

  5. State v. Habets

    264 P.3d 1139 (Mont. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    ¶ 13 The Court generally upholds a legal sentence if it falls within statutory limits. State v. Morris, 2010 MT 259, ¶ 15, 358 Mont. 307, 245 P.3d 512; State v. Harper, 2006 MT 259, ¶ 17, 334 Mont. 138, 144 P.3d 826. Section 45–5–202(2), MCA, provides the applicable sentence for aggravated assault. The statute provides for a maximum prison term not to exceed 20 years.

  6. State v. Morris

    2010 MT 259 (Mont. 2010)   Cited 12 times

    ¶ 15 Generally, a sentence is legal if it falls within statutory limits. State v. Harper, 2006 MT 259, ¶ 17, 334 Mont. 138, 144 P.3d 826. Morris does not contend that he was sentenced in excess of statutory authority.