Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 18. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT · Part 4. Factors That Reduce Sentence
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-404 (2026)

Repealed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 46
  3. CHAPTER 18
  4. Part 4
  5. 46-18-404 Repealed

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 18. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT

Part 4. Factors That Reduce Sentence

Repealed

46-18-404. Repealed. Sec. 12, Ch. 372, L. 1995.

History: En. 95-2206.16 by Sec. 1, Ch. 340, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 95-2206.16; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 426, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 106, L. 1989.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: State v. Finley, 915 P.2d 208 (Mont. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Finley, 915 P.2d 208 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 20× “Finley argues that the District Court did not have the power to defer determination of his status as a dangerous or non-dangerous offender because at the time he was charged, Montana's statutory scheme did not allow the District Court this option.”
State v. Nichols, 720 P.2d 1157 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 32× “The District Court further designated the defendant-appellant a dangerous offender for the purpose of parole eligibility pursuant to Section 46-18-404, MCA. In addition, the District Court strongly *73 recommended, “that the Warden of the Montana State Prison, when and if he…”
State v. Wilson, 926 P.2d 712 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 23× “Did the District Court have the authority to designate Wilson a dangerous offender pursuant to § 46-18-404, MCA (1993), which was in effect at the time Wilson committed his underlying offenses, but had been repealed before his conviction and sentencing? 2.”
State v. Dahl, 620 P.2d 361 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 50× “" Last, he contends that the trial court erred in concluding that section 46-18-404, MCA, required defendant to be classified as a dangerous offender for parole eligibility.”
State v. Moorman, 928 P.2d 145 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 14× “In reviewing the District Court’s jurisdiction to continue Moor-man’s dangerous designation, we look to § 46-18-404, MCA (1981) (repealed 1995), because it was the statute in effect at the time the crime was committed.”
State v. Miller, 757 P.2d 1275 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 9× “We will not insert the disjunctive “or” when the legislature chose to employ the conjunctive “and.”
State v. Long, 907 P.2d 945 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 16× “Furthermore, our review of the record indicates that Long satisfies the criteria of § 46-18-404(1), MCA (1991), necessary to be designated as a nondangerous offender.”
State v. Morrison, 848 P.2d 514 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 12× “Did the District Court err in failing to articulate its reasons for designating appellant as a “dangerous offender” for purposes of eligibility of parole as required by § 46-18-404, MCA? Appellant was charged with sexual intercourse without consent on September 14,1990.”
Vernon Kills on Top v. State, 2000 MT 340 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 10× “" ¶ 81 Section 46-18-404, MCA (1987) provides that Vernon Kills On Top was eligible to be designated a nondangerous offender if he did "not represent a substantial danger to other persons or society.”
State v. Wing, 870 P.2d 1368 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 9× “Did the District Court err in designating defendant Lorenz a dangerous offender for purposes of parole eligibility? *229 Lorenz contends the District Court failed to adequately articulate its reasons for designating him a dangerous offender under § 46-18-404, MCA. In pertinent…”
State v. Suiste, 862 P.2d 399 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 13× “At the time of the revocation hearing, § 46-18-404(4) MCA, did authorize the District Court to designate him as a danger *254 ous offender. Suiste maintains that the effect of the designation is to increase his punishment, therefore, the statute violates the ban on ex post facto…”
State v. Fisher, 620 P.2d 1215 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 30× “" Under section 46-18-404, MCA, the sentencing court shall designate an offender as nondangerous if: "(a) during the 5 years preceding the commission of the offense for which the offender is being sentenced, the offender was neither convicted of nor incarcerated for an offense…”
Show all 76 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-404(1) — 14 cases
State v. Miller, 757 P.2d 1275 (Mont. 1988). “We will not insert the disjunctive “or” when the legislature chose to employ the conjunctive “and.”
State v. Nichols, 720 P.2d 1157 (Mont. 1986). “The District Court further designated the defendant-appellant a dangerous offender for the purpose of parole eligibility pursuant to Section 46-18-404, MCA. In addition, the District Court strongly *73 recommended, “that the Warden of the Montana State Prison, when and if he…”
State v. Evans, 806 P.2d 512 (Mont. 1991).
Matter of McFadden, 605 P.2d 599 (Mont. 1980).
Smith v. State, 606 P.2d 153 (Mont. 1980).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-404(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Dahl, 620 P.2d 361 (Mont. 1980). “" Last, he contends that the trial court erred in concluding that section 46-18-404, MCA, required defendant to be classified as a dangerous offender for parole eligibility.”
State v. Fisher, 620 P.2d 1215 (Mont. 1980). “" Under section 46-18-404, MCA, the sentencing court shall designate an offender as nondangerous if: "(a) during the 5 years preceding the commission of the offense for which the offender is being sentenced, the offender was neither convicted of nor incarcerated for an offense…”
State v. Eichenlaub, 901 P.2d 90 (Mont. 1995).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-404(1)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Collier, 919 P.2d 376 (Mont. 1996).
Vernon Kills on Top v. State, 2000 MT 340 (Mont. 2000). “" ¶ 81 Section 46-18-404, MCA (1987) provides that Vernon Kills On Top was eligible to be designated a nondangerous offender if he did "not represent a substantial danger to other persons or society.”
State v. Lorenz, 883 P.2d 98 (Mont. 1994).
Moore v. McCormick (Mont. 1993).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-404(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Nichols, 720 P.2d 1157 (Mont. 1986). “The District Court further designated the defendant-appellant a dangerous offender for the purpose of parole eligibility pursuant to Section 46-18-404, MCA. In addition, the District Court strongly *73 recommended, “that the Warden of the Montana State Prison, when and if he…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-404(3) — 14 cases
State v. Moorman, 928 P.2d 145 (Mont. 1996). “In reviewing the District Court’s jurisdiction to continue Moor-man’s dangerous designation, we look to § 46-18-404, MCA (1981) (repealed 1995), because it was the statute in effect at the time the crime was committed.”
State v. Dahl, 620 P.2d 361 (Mont. 1980). “" Last, he contends that the trial court erred in concluding that section 46-18-404, MCA, required defendant to be classified as a dangerous offender for parole eligibility.”
State v. Henrich, 886 P.2d 402 (Mont. 1994).
State v. Higley, 621 P.2d 1043 (Mont. 1980).
State v. Pence, 902 P.2d 41 (Mont. 1995).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-404(4) — 4 cases
State v. Long, 907 P.2d 945 (Mont. 1995). “Furthermore, our review of the record indicates that Long satisfies the criteria of § 46-18-404(1), MCA (1991), necessary to be designated as a nondangerous offender.”
State v. Finley, 915 P.2d 208 (Mont. 1996). “Finley argues that the District Court did not have the power to defer determination of his status as a dangerous or non-dangerous offender because at the time he was charged, Montana's statutory scheme did not allow the District Court this option.”
State v. Moorman, 928 P.2d 145 (Mont. 1996). “In reviewing the District Court’s jurisdiction to continue Moor-man’s dangerous designation, we look to § 46-18-404, MCA (1981) (repealed 1995), because it was the statute in effect at the time the crime was committed.”
State v. Suiste, 862 P.2d 399 (Mont. 1993). “At the time of the revocation hearing, § 46-18-404(4) MCA, did authorize the District Court to designate him as a danger *254 ous offender. Suiste maintains that the effect of the designation is to increase his punishment, therefore, the statute violates the ban on ex post facto…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-404(l)(a) — 2 cases
Matter of McFadden, 605 P.2d 599 (Mont. 1980).
Smith v. State, 606 P.2d 153 (Mont. 1980).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-404(l)(b) — 9 cases
State v. Nichols, 720 P.2d 1157 (Mont. 1986). “The District Court further designated the defendant-appellant a dangerous offender for the purpose of parole eligibility pursuant to Section 46-18-404, MCA. In addition, the District Court strongly *73 recommended, “that the Warden of the Montana State Prison, when and if he…”
Matter of McFadden, 605 P.2d 599 (Mont. 1980).
State v. Morrison, 848 P.2d 514 (Mont. 1993). “Did the District Court err in failing to articulate its reasons for designating appellant as a “dangerous offender” for purposes of eligibility of parole as required by § 46-18-404, MCA? Appellant was charged with sexual intercourse without consent on September 14,1990.”
Vernon Kills on Top v. State, 2000 MT 340 (Mont. 2000). “" ¶ 81 Section 46-18-404, MCA (1987) provides that Vernon Kills On Top was eligible to be designated a nondangerous offender if he did "not represent a substantial danger to other persons or society.”
Moore v. McCormick, 858 P.2d 1254 (Mont. 1993).
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.