No. 89-167
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1989
STATE O F MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs-
I -
RONALD RQGERS rC.
. -J
,
i-
1-1
D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t .
--
f
1- J
APPEAL,/$ROM:' ~ i s t r i c t o u r t o f t h e ~ h i r t e e n t h~ u d i c i a l i s t r i c t ,
C ~
P-.-, : I n and f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e ,
"
k . The H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t Holmstrom, J u d g e presiding.
*-
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Gary E. W i l c o x , B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondent:
Hon. Marc ~ a c i c o t ,A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
Kathy S e e l e y , A s s t . A t t y . G e n e r a l , H e l e n a
H a r o l d H a n s e r , County A t t o r n e y ; avid H o e f e r , Deputy,
E i l l i n g s , Montana
s u b m i t t e d on ~ r i e f s : J u n e 3 0 , 1989
Decided: September 2 7 , 1989
a
Filed:
Clerk
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr. delivered the Opinion of the
Court.
Defendant, Ronald Rogers, appeals the decision of the
District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial ~istrict,
Yellowstone County, revoking his suspended sentence that was
entered on June 26, 1987 and ordering instead that he serve
ten years in the Montana State Prison with only six years
suspended. We affirm.
The County Attorney of Yellowstone County, Montana
filed an information on December 17, 1986, charging Ronald
Rogers, the defendant, with two felony counts of sexual
assault and one misdemeanor count of indecent exposure.
Rogers pled guilty on June 5, 1987 to all three counts. On
June 26, 1987, the District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial
~istrict,Yellowstone County, sentenced Rogers to ten years
imprisonment for each count of sexual assault, the sentences
to run concurrently with all but thirty days suspended for
each count. The District Court also sentenced Rogers to six
months for indecent exposure and suspended this sentence in
its entirety.
The conditions of Rogers1 suspended sentence included:
1. The defendant shall not frequent any
place where intoxicating liquor or beer
is the chief item of sale nor shall he
use intoxicants or beer; nor shall he
purchase, use, possess, give, sell or
administer any narcotic or dangerous
drugs or have in his possession same
without proper prescription by a doctor.
9. The defendant shall continue with
mental health counseling, at his own
expense, as approved and monitored by the
Adult probation and Parole ~ield
Services.
Rogers subsequently signed an acknowledgement of acceptance
of terms and conditions of probation which stated, in part:
The conditions of said probation have
been read by the undersigned and are
fully understood, and the undersigned
does hereby covenant that he will
strictly carry out and follow the terms
of said probation.
The Deputy County Attorney filed a petition on December
5, 1988 for revocation of the order suspending Rogers'
sentence. The ~istrictCourt held a hearing on the petition
to revoke on January 31, 1989 and subsequently revoked
Rogers' suspended sentence and ordered that he serve ten
years in the Montana State Prison with only six years
suspended.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the ~istrictCourt
abused its discretion when it revoked Rogers' suspended
sentence and imposed a four year sentence of incarceration.
Rogers argues that he substantially complied with the
terms and conditions of his probation and that his violations
were only technical and were therefore not sufficient grounds
for revocation of his suspended sentence. The record reveals
that Rogers violated the terms and conditions of his
suspended sentence by drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana.
Rogers was also terminated from the sexual offender treatment
program because he was diagnosed by his counselor as too
dangerous to be treated on an outpatient basis.
Under S S 46-18-201(1) (b) and 46-18-202, MCA, a district
court has the power to suspend a sentence and impose
conditions for probation and other conditions it considers
necessary to obtain the objectives of rehabilitation and the
protection of society. A district court also has the
discretion, under 5 46-18-203(1), MCA, to revoke a suspended
sentence. This section provides:
(1) A judge, magistrate, or justice of the peace
who has suspended the execution of a sentence or
deferred the imposition of a sentence of
imprisonment under 46-18-201 or his successor is
authorized in his discretion to revoke the
suspension or impose sentence and order the person
committed. He may also, in his discretion, order
the prisoner placed under the jurisdiction of the
department of institutions as provided by law or
retain such jurisdiction with his court.
A district court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence
cancels a prior act of grace and is within the court's
discretion. State v. Kern (1984), 212 Mont. 385, 388, 695
P.2d 1300, 1301; State v. ~obinson (19801, 190 Mont. 145,
149, 619 P.2d 813, 815.
In Robinson, we stated that when a district court
revokes a suspended sentence all that is required is that the
district court must be reasonably satisfied that the
probationer's conduct has not been what he agreed upon when
he was given the suspended sentence. We further stated that
the probationer was expected to walk the "straight and
narrow" and conduct himself in a manner which would justify a
district court's leniency. ~obinson, 190 Mont. at 148-49,
619 P.2d at 815.
On review, this Court's role is to determine whether the
District Court abused its discretion when it revoked Rogers'
suspended sentence. The record clearly demonstrates, and
Rogers does not deny, that he did violate the conditions of
his suspended sentence by drinking alcohol and smoking
marijuana. Although Rogers argues that these violations were
merely technical violations, we nonetheless agree with the
~yomingSupreme Court's statement that " En]o violation of a
probation agreement is minor . . . ." ~ollins v. State (Wyo.
1986), 712 P.2d 368, 371. Therefore, in light of the record,
the ~ i s t r i c t Court did not abuse its discretion when it
revoked Rogers' suspended sentence. A
Af firmed.
w@;L
.- Justices