State v. Spurlock, 256 Mont. 32 (Mont. 1992). · Go Syfert
State v. Spurlock, 256 Mont. 32 (Mont. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Wright v. Mahoney (2×)
Mont. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Leistiko (1992), 256 Mont. 32 , 36, 844 P.2d 97, 99 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Parker
Mont. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Shockley, 2001 MT 180, ¶ 11 , 306 Mont. 196, ¶ 11 , 31 P.3d 350, ¶ 11 (citing State v. Leistiko (1992), 256 Mont. 32 , 844 P.2d 97 ).
cited Cited "see" State v. Shockley
Mont. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Leistiko, 256 Mont. at 33 , 844 P.2d at 98 (vacating that portion of the sentence which was illegal).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF MONTANA
v.
FLOYD LENARD SPURLOCK
NO. Dc-86-1.
Montana Supreme Court.
Jul 24, 1992.
256 Mont. 32
Baugh, Hon, McKittrick, McLean.
Published

On July 7,1986, the Defendant was sentenced to sixty-five (65) years for Deliberate Homicide, plus five (5) years for the use of a weapon; said sentences are to be served consecutively. The defendant shall be given credit for 53 days time served.

On July 24,1992, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Ann German, Attorney at Law from Libby, Montana. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed. The reason for the decision is the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct pursuant to Section 46-18-904(3), MCA. The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to deem inadequate or excessive as required to overcome the presumption per Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Sentence Review Board finds that although there were a lot of mitigating circumstances, this is a matter for the parole board.

Hon. Ed McLean, Chairman, Hon. Thomas M. McKittrick, Hon. G. Todd Baugh, Judges.

The Sentence Review Board wishes thank Ann German, Attorney at Law from Libby for her assistance to the defendant and to this Court.