46-18-117. Repealed. Sec. 2, Ch. 74, L. 2001.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-117 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 18. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT
Part 1. Policy and Preliminary Procedure
Repealed
History: En. Sec. 223, Ch. 800, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 42, Ch. 262, L. 1993.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1993–2007 · leading case: State v. Lane, 1998 MT 76, 957 P.2d 9.
State v. Lane, 1998 MT 76, 957 P.2d 9. “The State also asserts that the District Court has authority under § 46-18-117, MCA, to correct an erroneous sentence at any time.”
State v. Brister, 2002 MT 13, 41 P.3d 314. “¶9 Brister filed an Objection, under § 46-18-117, MCA (1999) (now repealed), to the District Court’s Sentence on September 21, 1999.”
State v. Graveley, 915 P.2d 184 (Mont. 1996). “Section 46-18-117, MCA (1993), states: The court may correct an erroneous sentence or disposition at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within 120 days after the sentence is imposed or after remand from an appellate court.”
State v. Evert, 2004 MT 178, 93 P.3d 1254. “¶15 At the time Evert filed his petition for postconviction relief, § 46-18-117, MCA (1997), provided that a court may modify or “correct an erroneous sentence or disposition at any time and may correct a *110 sentence imposed in an illegal manner within 120 days after the…”
State v. Kern, 2003 MT 77, 67 P.3d 272. “In contrast, Kern argued that the District Court should correct the error in its initial sentence, pursuant to § 46-18-117, MCA (1999), by revising the suspended portion to include all but five years.”
State v. Waters, 1999 MT 229, 987 P.2d 1142. “Hence, we held that the district court’s entry of a nunc pro tunc order to correct the conflict, arising from a “clerical error,” was within the district court’s authority pursuant to § 46-18-117, MCA. Lane, ¶ 49. ¶27 The alleged “conflict” in this case is the inclusion of…”
State v. St. John, 2001 MT 1, 15 P.3d 970. “John did not object to the District Court’s failure to consider sentencing alternatives under § 46-18-225, MCA, nor did he request reconsideration of the court’s sentence under § 46-18-117, MCA 1 . ¶17 Section 46-20-104(2), MCA, provides that an appellant waives all errors to…”
State v. Richards, 948 P.2d 240 (Mont. 1997). “Pursuant to § 46-18-117, MCA, a court may modify or “correct an erroneous sentence or disposition at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within 120 days after the sentence is imposed or after remand from an appellate court.”
State v. Christianson, 1999 MT 156, 983 P.2d 909. “¶23 Section 46-18-117, MCA, expressly provides that the District Court may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner after remand from an appellate court: Correction of sentence.”
State v. Fertterer, 860 P.2d 151 (Mont. 1993). “Thus, the District Court could not amend the defendants’ sentences unless those sentences were illegal or were imposed in an illegal manner.”
State v. Miller, 2006 MT 86N. “On April 12, 2005, Miller filed a 2 motion under § 46-18-117, MCA (1991) (repealed), 1 to correct or modify his sentence, arguing in part that the credit he received from the nunc pro tunc order should be applied to his parole eligibility date.”
State v. Bourne, 856 P.2d 222 (Mont. 1993). “) Bourne moved the sentencing court on November 20, 1992 for a correction of sentence pursuant to § 46-18-117, MCA. Bourne's contention is that restitution was not intended to be a condition of his parole and because he had no part of his sentence deferred or suspended,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.