Notes of Decisions
Cited in
60
cases (
21 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case:
State v. Tracy, 2005 MT 128 (Mont. 2005).
State v. Tracy, 2005 MT 128 (Mont. 2005).
· cites it 11× “¶27 Section 46-18-401, MCA, while not artfully drafted, provides that when a judge chooses to exercise his or her discretion to order that sentences for unrelated offenses are to run concurrently, not consecutively, and the person committed is already serving a sentence, the two…”
State v. Seals, 2007 MT 71 (Mont. 2007).
· cites it 14× “The State argues that under § 46-18-401, MCA, it was within the District Court’s discretion whether to run the sentences imposed upon revocation consecutively or concurrently.”
State v. Adams, 2013 MT 189 (Mont. 2013).
· cites it 12× “As we explained in Seals , § 46-18-401, MCA, which governs the designation of a sentence as consecutive or concurrent, is not part of the revocation sentencing provisions.”
State v. Essig, 2009 MT 340 (Mont. 2009).
· cites it 6× “CONCLUSION ¶ 35 With the exception of the imposition of restitution for expenses related to acquiring a handgun, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.”
State v. Miller, 757 P.2d 1275 (Mont. 1988).
· cites it 6× “Miller contends that the imposition of consecutive terms in connection with a single “episode” of criminal behavior violates the intent of Section 46-18-401(4), MCA. Miller does not contest the 10 year sentence he received for felony assault by accountability because it was not…”
Petition of Arledge, 756 P.2d 1169 (Mont. 1988).
· cites it 12× “Section 46-18-401, MCA, is Montana’s merger statute.”
State v. Hall, 2003 MT 253 (Mont. 2003).
· cites it 5× “The sentences were ordered to run consecutively to each other, creating a total sentence of eleven years. The sentencing order is silent as to whether this sentence would run concurrently with the previous sentence of forgery.”
Ingersoll v. State, 1999 MT 215 (Mont. 1999).
· cites it 20× “) Furthermore, § 46-18-401(4), MCA (1989), provides that separate sentences for two or more offenses must run consecutively unless the court orders otherwise.”
State v. Hamilton, 428 P.3d 849 (Mont. 2018).
· cites it 5× “While the District Court's statement that "we're going to do 100 years every single time" weighs against this conclusion, when reviewing the record in its entirety, the Court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. Hamilton's sentence fits within the statutory parameters.”
State v. Youpee, 416 P.3d 1050 (Mont. 2018).
· cites it 3× “Section 46-18-401(4), MCA. Thus, the *1052 District Court effectively imposed a longer term of imprisonment or commitment by failing to specify that Youpee's new sentence ran concurrently with his preexisting federal sentence.”
State v. McGuire, 860 P.2d 148 (Mont. 1993).
· cites it 8× “Did the District Court err by imposing a sentence consecutive to one not yet imposed by another district court? McGuire argues that under § 46-18-401(1)(a), MCA, only a district court which imposes a sentence subsequent to one already imposed has the authority to determine…”
State v. M. Mendoza, 2021 MT 197 (Mont. 2021).
· cites it 3× “The State indicated that after the Justice Court warrant was issued, “for whatever reason the justice court did not bring him over until he had resolved [the Gallatin and Missoula County] charges” and argued, “He was on some kind of bond in those [Gallatin and Missoula County]…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-401(1) — 5 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-401(1)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Tracy, 2005 MT 128 (Mont. 2005).
“¶27 Section 46-18-401, MCA, while not artfully drafted, provides that when a judge chooses to exercise his or her discretion to order that sentences for unrelated offenses are to run concurrently, not consecutively, and the person committed is already serving a sentence, the two…”
State v. McGuire, 860 P.2d 148 (Mont. 1993).
“Did the District Court err by imposing a sentence consecutive to one not yet imposed by another district court? McGuire argues that under § 46-18-401(1)(a), MCA, only a district court which imposes a sentence subsequent to one already imposed has the authority to determine…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-401(1)(b) — 4 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-401(3) — 1 case
State v. M. Mendoza, 2021 MT 197 (Mont. 2021).
“The State indicated that after the Justice Court warrant was issued, “for whatever reason the justice court did not bring him over until he had resolved [the Gallatin and Missoula County] charges” and argued, “He was on some kind of bond in those [Gallatin and Missoula County]…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-401(4) — 29 cases
State v. Essig, 2009 MT 340 (Mont. 2009).
“CONCLUSION ¶ 35 With the exception of the imposition of restitution for expenses related to acquiring a handgun, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.”
State v. Miller, 757 P.2d 1275 (Mont. 1988).
“Miller contends that the imposition of consecutive terms in connection with a single “episode” of criminal behavior violates the intent of Section 46-18-401(4), MCA. Miller does not contest the 10 year sentence he received for felony assault by accountability because it was not…”
Ingersoll v. State, 1999 MT 215 (Mont. 1999).
“) Furthermore, § 46-18-401(4), MCA (1989), provides that separate sentences for two or more offenses must run consecutively unless the court orders otherwise.”
State v. Seals, 2007 MT 71 (Mont. 2007).
“The State argues that under § 46-18-401, MCA, it was within the District Court’s discretion whether to run the sentences imposed upon revocation consecutively or concurrently.”
State v. Youpee, 416 P.3d 1050 (Mont. 2018).
“Section 46-18-401(4), MCA. Thus, the *1052 District Court effectively imposed a longer term of imprisonment or commitment by failing to specify that Youpee's new sentence ran concurrently with his preexisting federal sentence.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-401(5) — 6 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-401(l)(a) — 4 cases
Petition of Arledge, 756 P.2d 1169 (Mont. 1988).
“Section 46-18-401, MCA, is Montana’s merger statute.”
State v. Tracy, 2005 MT 128 (Mont. 2005).
“¶27 Section 46-18-401, MCA, while not artfully drafted, provides that when a judge chooses to exercise his or her discretion to order that sentences for unrelated offenses are to run concurrently, not consecutively, and the person committed is already serving a sentence, the two…”
State v. McGuire, 860 P.2d 148 (Mont. 1993).
“Did the District Court err by imposing a sentence consecutive to one not yet imposed by another district court? McGuire argues that under § 46-18-401(1)(a), MCA, only a district court which imposes a sentence subsequent to one already imposed has the authority to determine…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-401(l)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Adams, 2013 MT 189 (Mont. 2013).
“As we explained in Seals , § 46-18-401, MCA, which governs the designation of a sentence as consecutive or concurrent, is not part of the revocation sentencing provisions.”
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.