Notes of Decisions
Cited in
73
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case:
State v. Pavey, 2010 MT 104 (Mont. 2010).
State v. Pavey, 2010 MT 104 (Mont. 2010).
· cites it 18× “In this regard, § 46-18-403(1), MCA, states that “[a] person incarcerated on a bailable offense against whom a judgment of imprisonment is rendered must be allowed credit for each day of incarceration prior to or after conviction, except that the time allowed as a credit may not…”
State v. Pavey, 2010 MT 104 (Mont. 2010).
· cites it 17× “We disagreed and held that § 46-18-403(1), MCA, entitles defendants to credit for presentence incarceration “only once against the aggregate of all terms imposed when multiple sentences are imposed consecutively.”
State v. Kime, 43 P.3d 290 (Mont. 2002).
· cites it 17× “¶9 Section 46-18-403(1), MCA, provides that “[a]ny person incarcerated on a bailable offense and against whom a judgment of imprisonment is rendered must be allowed credit for each day of incarceration prior to or after conviction.”
State v. Price, 2002 MT 150 (Mont. 2002).
· cites it 11× “¶24 The State, on the other hand, contends that the District Court correctly interpreted § 46-18-403(1), MCA, when it applied the eighteen days of credit once against the total time to be served for the three consecutive sentences.”
State v. M. Mendoza, 2021 MT 197 (Mont. 2021).
· cites it 13× “Oral argument was held before this Court on June 16, 2021. At oral argument, Mendoza asserted he was served with an arrest warrant on December 5, 2017, which set bond at $25,000.”
State v. Erickson, 2005 MT 276 (Mont. 2005).
· cites it 14× “Erickson argues that his incarceration after September 19, 2002, was directly related to the initial possession charge from November 1, 2001, because the bond he had posted was revoked on September 18,2002, and he was in jail awaiting trial on both charges.”
State v. Hafner, 2010 MT 233 (Mont. 2010).
· cites it 13× “ISSUES ¶2 A restatement of the issues on appeal is: ¶3 Did the District Court err in denying Hafner’s motion to suppress? ¶4 Did the District Court incorrectly interpret §46-18-403, MCA? FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶5 On January 29, 2008, at approximately 1:15 a.”
State v. Horton, 2000 MT 100 (Mont. 2001).
· cites it 8× “" ¶ 32 Horton argues on appeal that the District Court erred in issuing a written sentence refusing to grant him credit for time served when the Judge specifically stated at the sentencing hearing that Horton would get credit for the time he served in the Park County Jail.”
City of Kalispell v. Salsgiver, 443 P.3d 504 (Mont. 2019).
· cites it 6× “Salsgiver's sentence on the criminal mischief conviction is remanded to the Municipal Court with instructions to strike the imposition of the $ 10 contract fee, the ten-percent annual interest rate on Salsgiver's unpaid principal balance, and the prepayment bar of his monthly…”
State v. McCaslin, 2011 MT 221 (Mont. 2011).
· cites it 13× “¶9 Section 46-18-403(1), MCA, provides that la] person incarcerated on a bailable offense against whom a judgment of imprisonment is rendered must be allowed credit for each day of incarceration prior to or after conviction, except that the time allowed as a credit may not…”
State v. Hornstein, 2010 MT 75 (Mont. 2010).
· cites it 9× “¶13 Section 46-18-403(1), MCA (2007), provides: “A person incarcerated on a bailable offense against whom a judgment of imprisonment is rendered must be allowed credit for each day of incarceration prior to or after conviction, except that the time allowed as a credit may not…”
State v. Tracy, 2005 MT 128 (Mont. 2005).
· cites it 3× “In this case §46-18-203(7)(b), MCA, and § 46-18-401, MCA, dealing with credit for time served on consecutive sentences, apply. ¶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…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-403(1) — 50 cases
State v. Pavey, 2010 MT 104 (Mont. 2010).
“In this regard, § 46-18-403(1), MCA, states that “[a] person incarcerated on a bailable offense against whom a judgment of imprisonment is rendered must be allowed credit for each day of incarceration prior to or after conviction, except that the time allowed as a credit may not…”
State v. Pavey, 2010 MT 104 (Mont. 2010).
“We disagreed and held that § 46-18-403(1), MCA, entitles defendants to credit for presentence incarceration “only once against the aggregate of all terms imposed when multiple sentences are imposed consecutively.”
State v. Kime, 43 P.3d 290 (Mont. 2002).
“¶9 Section 46-18-403(1), MCA, provides that “[a]ny person incarcerated on a bailable offense and against whom a judgment of imprisonment is rendered must be allowed credit for each day of incarceration prior to or after conviction.”
State v. Price, 2002 MT 150 (Mont. 2002).
“¶24 The State, on the other hand, contends that the District Court correctly interpreted § 46-18-403(1), MCA, when it applied the eighteen days of credit once against the total time to be served for the three consecutive sentences.”
State v. M. Mendoza, 2021 MT 197 (Mont. 2021).
“Oral argument was held before this Court on June 16, 2021. At oral argument, Mendoza asserted he was served with an arrest warrant on December 5, 2017, which set bond at $25,000.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-403(1)(a) — 2 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-403(1)(b) — 2 cases
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-403(2) — 12 cases
State v. Hafner, 2010 MT 233 (Mont. 2010).
“ISSUES ¶2 A restatement of the issues on appeal is: ¶3 Did the District Court err in denying Hafner’s motion to suppress? ¶4 Did the District Court incorrectly interpret §46-18-403, MCA? FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶5 On January 29, 2008, at approximately 1:15 a.”
City of Kalispell v. Salsgiver, 443 P.3d 504 (Mont. 2019).
“Salsgiver's sentence on the criminal mischief conviction is remanded to the Municipal Court with instructions to strike the imposition of the $ 10 contract fee, the ten-percent annual interest rate on Salsgiver's unpaid principal balance, and the prepayment bar of his monthly…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-403(4) — 1 case
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.