February 10 2009
DA 08-0231
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2009 MT 34N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM J. SKIDMORE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Hill, Cause No. DC-06-060
Honorable David Rice, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Joslyn Hunt, Assistant
Appellate Defender Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Tammy K. Plubell,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Cyndee L. Peterson, Hill County Attorney, Havre, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 22, 2009
Decided: February 10, 2009
Filed:
__________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 After William J. Skidmore (Skidmore) violated conditions of a ten-year suspended
sentence to the Montana State Prison (MSP), the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Hill
County, revoked the suspended sentence and sentenced Skidmore to the Department of
Corrections (DOC) for ten years. Skidmore appealed to this Court, noting that § 46-18-
201(3)(d)(i), MCA, requires that “all but the first 5 years of the commitment to the
department of corrections must be suspended . . . .” We remanded for resentencing in accord
with the statute, whereupon the District Court sentenced Skidmore to MSP for ten years,
giving him credit for over 400 days served. Skidmore now appeals the legality of the prison
sentence, arguing that the District Court imposed a more burdensome sentence without new
“identifiable conduct” after the original sentence. See State v. Redfern, 2004 MT 277, ¶ 12,
323 Mont. 225, 99 P.3d 223. We affirm.
¶3 The District Court originally imposed a legal sentence of ten years to MSP,
suspended. After the State proved that Skidmore violated several conditions of the
suspended sentence, the District Court had authority to revoke the suspended sentence and
2
sentence Skidmore to MSP for up to ten years. See § 46-18-203(7)(a)(iii), MCA. Instead, at
Skidmore’s request, the District Court sentenced Skidmore to DOC for ten years. However,
the District Court did not have authority to impose a ten-year sentence to DOC due to § 46-
18-201(3)(d)(i), MCA. On remand the District Court had authority to impose the original
legal sentence to MSP for ten years. We disagree with Skidmore’s contention that the
original sentence was the ten-year DOC sentence imposed after revocation of the ten-year
MSP suspended sentence. Unlike State v. Jackson, 2007 MT 186, 338 Mont. 344, 165 P.3d
321, in which the court originally sentenced Jackson to DOC for six years, here the original
sentence to MSP for ten years does not implicate § 46-18-201(3)(d)(i), MCA.
¶4 The District Court fully explained its reasons for sentencing Skidmore to MSP for ten
years suspended at the original sentencing hearing, and ten years to MSP after revocation
and following appeal, in accord with Redfern, ¶ 12. The District Court identified objective
information regarding Skidmore’s identifiable conduct after the original sentence,
particularly Skidmore’s violations of his suspended sentence.
¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum
opinions. The issue is clearly controlled by settled Montana law.
3
¶6 The sentence is affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We concur:
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
4