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. § 46-18-904 (2026)

Procedure Upon Review

✓ 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. 46-18-904 Procedure upon review

TITLE 46. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 18. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT

Part 9. Appellate Review of Legal Sentences

Procedure Upon Review

46-18-904. Procedure upon review. (1) In each case in which an application for review is filed in accordance with 46-18-903, the review division:

(a) (i) shall review the judgment as it relates to the sentence 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 could have been imposed at the time of the imposition of the sentence under review, including a decrease or increase in the penalty; or

(b) may decide that the sentence under review should stand.

(2) In reviewing a judgment, the division may require the production of presentence reports and any other records, documents, or exhibits relevant to the review proceedings. The person requesting the review may appear and has the right to be represented by counsel, and the state may be represented by the county attorney of the county in which the sentence was imposed. Any other interested person, including the sentencing judge, may attend and participate in the review proceedings.

(3) The sentence imposed by the district court is presumed correct. If the review division orders a different sentence, the court sitting in any convenient county shall resentence the person as ordered by the review division. Time served on the sentence reviewed is considered to have been served on the sentence substituted.

History: En. 95-2503 by Sec. 1, Ch. 196, L. 1967; R.C.M. 1947, 95-2503(part); amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 654, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 69, L. 2003.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,305 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: State v. Triplett, 2008 MT 360 (Mont. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Triplett, 2008 MT 360 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 12× “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…”
Ranta v. State, 1998 MT 95 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 13× “Specifically, § 46-18-904 (1), MCA, states: [T]he review division shall review the judgment so far as it relates to the sentence imposed, either increasing or decreasing the penalty, and any other sentence imposed on the person at the same *396 time and may order such different…”
McKenzie v. Osborne, 640 P.2d 368 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 6× “Under section 46-18-904, MCA, the sentence review division is given full authority to review the judgment so far as it relates to the sentence imposed, to either increase or decrease the penalty.”
Jordan v. State, 2008 MT 334 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 7× “) 1 He also relies on § 46-18-904(3), MCA, which provides in part: The sentence imposed by the district court is presumed correct.”
Driver v. Sentence Review Div. in Supreme Court, 2010 MT 43 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 18× “Although Petitioners criticize this standard, they conceded during argument that Rule 17 is not inconsistent with the statutes governing the Division, and we cannot conclude otherwise.”
State v. Wilson, 2011 MT 277 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 3× “” Section 46-18-904(3), MCA. We will not disturb it.”
State v. Moorman, 928 P.2d 145 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 3× “Section 46-18-904, MCA. However, the Sentence Review Division does not review errors of law resulting in an illegal sentence.”
State v. Hill, 2009 MT 134 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 6× “Section 46-18-904, MCA. However, in State v.”
State v. Fletcher, 377 Mont. 10 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 3× “” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA). It is the unanimous decision of the Division that the open-ended provision for payment of restitution in an indefinite amount, at an uncertain time in the future, is a clearly excessive punishment given Montana Supreme Court rulings concerning…”
Avery v. Batista, 2014 MT 266 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 9× “) Section46-18-904, MCA, states in pertinent part that “[i]n each case in which an application for review is filed in accordance with 46-18-903, the review division: (a) (i) shall review the judgment.”
State v. Schaff, 373 Mont. 22 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 2× “” (§46-18-904(3), MCA). The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.”
State v. Poole, 263 Mont. 24 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 3× “The reason for the decision is the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct pursuant to Section 46-18-904(3), MCA. The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to deem inadequate or excessive as required to overcome the…”
Show all 1,305 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-904(1) — 3 cases
State v. Triplett, 2008 MT 360 (Mont. 2008). “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…”
Ranta v. State, 1998 MT 95 (Mont. 1998). “Specifically, § 46-18-904 (1), MCA, states: [T]he review division shall review the judgment so far as it relates to the sentence imposed, either increasing or decreasing the penalty, and any other sentence imposed on the person at the same *396 time and may order such different…”
Avery v. Batista, 2014 MT 266 (Mont. 2014). “) Section46-18-904, MCA, states in pertinent part that “[i]n each case in which an application for review is filed in accordance with 46-18-903, the review division: (a) (i) shall review the judgment.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-904(1)(a) — 1 case
MacGregor v. Sentence Review (Mont. 2021).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-904(1)(a)(ii) — 3 cases
Driver v. Sentence Review Div. in Supreme Court, 2010 MT 43 (Mont. 2010). “Although Petitioners criticize this standard, they conceded during argument that Rule 17 is not inconsistent with the statutes governing the Division, and we cannot conclude otherwise.”
C. Armstrong v. P. Bludworth (Mont. 2021).
Jerel Driver v. Sentence Re, 2010 MT 43 (Mont. 2010).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-904(2) — 3 cases
State v. Triplett, 2008 MT 360 (Mont. 2008). “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…”
Ranta v. State, 1998 MT 95 (Mont. 1998). “Specifically, § 46-18-904 (1), MCA, states: [T]he review division shall review the judgment so far as it relates to the sentence imposed, either increasing or decreasing the penalty, and any other sentence imposed on the person at the same *396 time and may order such different…”
MacGregor v. Sentence Review (Mont. 2021).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-904(3) — 1296 cases
State v. Wilson, 2011 MT 277 (Mont. 2011). “” Section 46-18-904(3), MCA. We will not disturb it.”
Jordan v. State, 2008 MT 334 (Mont. 2008). “) 1 He also relies on § 46-18-904(3), MCA, which provides in part: The sentence imposed by the district court is presumed correct.”
Ranta v. State, 1998 MT 95 (Mont. 1998). “Specifically, § 46-18-904 (1), MCA, states: [T]he review division shall review the judgment so far as it relates to the sentence imposed, either increasing or decreasing the penalty, and any other sentence imposed on the person at the same *396 time and may order such different…”
Driver v. Sentence Review Div. in Supreme Court, 2010 MT 43 (Mont. 2010). “Although Petitioners criticize this standard, they conceded during argument that Rule 17 is not inconsistent with the statutes governing the Division, and we cannot conclude otherwise.”
State v. Fletcher, 377 Mont. 10 (Mont. 2014). “” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA). It is the unanimous decision of the Division that the open-ended provision for payment of restitution in an indefinite amount, at an uncertain time in the future, is a clearly excessive punishment given Montana Supreme Court rulings concerning…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-904(l)(a)(2) — 1 case
State v. Triplett, 2008 MT 360 (Mont. 2008). “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…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-904(l)(a)(ii) — 2 cases
Jordan v. State, 2008 MT 334 (Mont. 2008). “) 1 He also relies on § 46-18-904(3), MCA, which provides in part: The sentence imposed by the district court is presumed correct.”
Driver v. Sentence Review Div. in Supreme Court, 2010 MT 43 (Mont. 2010). “Although Petitioners criticize this standard, they conceded during argument that Rule 17 is not inconsistent with the statutes governing the Division, and we cannot conclude otherwise.”
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.