Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 18. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT · Part 9. Appellate Review of Legal Sentences
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-901 (2026)

Review Division Of Supreme Court -- Review Of Sentences

✓ 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 9
  5. 46-18-901 Review division of supreme court -- review of sentences

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 18. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT

Part 9. Appellate Review of Legal Sentences

Review Division Of Supreme Court -- Review Of Sentences

46-18-901. Review division of supreme court -- review of sentences. (1) The chief justice of the supreme court of Montana shall appoint three district court judges to act as a review division of the supreme court and shall designate one of the judges to act as presiding officer of the review division. The clerk of the Montana supreme court shall record the appointment and shall give notice of the appointment to the clerk of every district court.

(2) The review division shall meet at least four times a year as its business requires, as determined by the presiding officer. The review division shall hold its meetings at locations as determined by the review division.

(3) The decision of two of the judges is sufficient to determine any matter before the review division.

(4) The review division may adopt any rules that will expedite its review of sentences. The division is also authorized to appoint a secretary.

History: En. 95-2501 by Sec. 1, Ch. 196, L. 1967; R.C.M. 1947, 95-2501(part); amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 69, L. 2003.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Holt v. Dist. Court of the Twenty-First Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Montana, 2000 MT 142 (Mont. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Holt v. Dist. Court of the Twenty-First Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Montana, 2000 MT 142 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 19× “He argues that the Sentence Review Division misinterpreted § 46-18-901(1), MCA, and applicable rules in denying him sentence review because he was not incarcerated.”
State v. Hernandez, 2009 MT 341 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 8× “Section 46-18-901, MCA. Were the legislature to abolish the review division, the function of reviewing sentences on equitable grounds would thus simply return to this Court.”
State v. Herd, 2004 MT 85 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 6× “We did not, at that time, have a reason to consider whether or not § 46-18-901(2), MCA, limited an offender's access to SRD because Montoya was sentenced to more than one year of actual incarceration.”
Ranta v. State, 1998 MT 95 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 8× “See Commission Comments to Mont. Code Ann. §§ 46-18-901 to 904. In State v.”
State v. Triplett, 2008 MT 360 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 4× “Upon receiving such an application, the Sentence Review Division: (a)(i) shall review the judgment as it relates to the sentence *391 imposed and any other sentence imposed on the person at the same time; and (ii) may order a different sentence or sentences to be imposed as…”
Driver v. Sentence Review Div. in Supreme Court, 2010 MT 43 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 22× “See §§ 46-18-901 through 905, MCA (2007). However, noting that the statutes granted it authority to “adopt any rules that will expedite its review of sentences,” § 46-18-901(4), MCA, the Division cited its purpose and standards for review of criminal sentences as set forth in…”
McKenzie v. Osborne, 640 P.2d 368 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 4× “Following our affirmance of the conviction and sentence in McKenzie II, the defendant sought relief under the Sentence Review Division of this Court, under the provisions of section 46-18-901 et seq., MCA. His petition for review there was denied.”
State v. Coleman, 605 P.2d 1000 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 2× “2d 873, 874 ; sections 46-18-901 to 905 MCA. However, when the death penalty has been imposed, the Legislature has directed this Court, because of the nature of the penalty involved, to undertake expeditiously both functions.”
Jordan v. State, 2008 MT 334 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 5× “Clearly, SRD is a “division” of this Court, as is evidenced by the fact that § 46-18-901, MCA, is entitled “Review division of supreme court - review of sentences.”
State v. Moorman, 928 P.2d 145 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 3× “Instead, he petitioned the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana to review his dangerous offender designation pursuant to §§ 46-18-901 through -905, MCA. The Sentence Review Division denied the petition, ruling that the District Court had considered the…”
State v. Christianson, 1999 MT 156 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 3× “Section 46-18-901, MCA. As this Court has stated in other contexts, the Division thus functions as part of the appellate process.”
State v. Warnick, 656 P.2d 190 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 2× “Section 46-18-221(1), MCA, mandates that a person who has used a firearm during the commission of an offense shall be sentenced to at least two more years in the state prison.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-901(1) — 7 cases
State Ex Rel. Holt v. Dist. Court of the Twenty-First Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Montana, 2000 MT 142 (Mont. 2000). “He argues that the Sentence Review Division misinterpreted § 46-18-901(1), MCA, and applicable rules in denying him sentence review because he was not incarcerated.”
Ranta v. State, 1998 MT 95 (Mont. 1998). “See Commission Comments to Mont. Code Ann. §§ 46-18-901 to 904. In State v.”
Jordan v. State, 2008 MT 334 (Mont. 2008). “Clearly, SRD is a “division” of this Court, as is evidenced by the fact that § 46-18-901, MCA, is entitled “Review division of supreme court - review of sentences.”
Driver v. Sentence Review Div. in Supreme Court, 2010 MT 43 (Mont. 2010). “See §§ 46-18-901 through 905, MCA (2007). However, noting that the statutes granted it authority to “adopt any rules that will expedite its review of sentences,” § 46-18-901(4), MCA, the Division cited its purpose and standards for review of criminal sentences as set forth in…”
Avery v. Batista, 2014 MT 266 (Mont. 2014).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-901(2) — 2 cases
State v. Herd, 2004 MT 85 (Mont. 2004). “We did not, at that time, have a reason to consider whether or not § 46-18-901(2), MCA, limited an offender's access to SRD because Montoya was sentenced to more than one year of actual incarceration.”
State Ex Rel. Holt v. Dist. Court of the Twenty-First Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Montana, 2000 MT 142 (Mont. 2000). “He argues that the Sentence Review Division misinterpreted § 46-18-901(1), MCA, and applicable rules in denying him sentence review because he was not incarcerated.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-901(3) — 1 case
State v. Herd, 2004 MT 85 (Mont. 2004). “We did not, at that time, have a reason to consider whether or not § 46-18-901(2), MCA, limited an offender's access to SRD because Montoya was sentenced to more than one year of actual incarceration.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-901(4) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Holt v. Dist. Court of the Twenty-First Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Montana, 2000 MT 142 (Mont. 2000). “He argues that the Sentence Review Division misinterpreted § 46-18-901(1), MCA, and applicable rules in denying him sentence review because he was not incarcerated.”
Driver v. Sentence Review Div. in Supreme Court, 2010 MT 43 (Mont. 2010). “See §§ 46-18-901 through 905, MCA (2007). However, noting that the statutes granted it authority to “adopt any rules that will expedite its review of sentences,” § 46-18-901(4), MCA, the Division cited its purpose and standards for review of criminal sentences as set forth in…”
Jerel Driver v. Sentence Re, 2010 MT 43 (Mont. 2010).
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.