Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney general-backed bill would clarify sentence computation after revocation following Wolfblack decision
Summary
Attorney General‑requested House Bill 612 seeks to fix sentence computation that the attorneys general’s office says was disrupted by State v. Wolfblack, which the proponents say produced unintended sentence shortening on revocation.
Representative Greg Overstreet presented House Bill 612 as an attorney general request bill to correct an issue created by the Montana Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Wolfblack (2024). Proponents said the court’s interpretation effectively allowed a defendant who had a suspended sentence revoked to receive a shorter total term because the revoked sentence was treated as running concurrently with another sentence, creating an incentive to violate a suspended sentence.
Sponsor and AG office presentation: Mardell Ployhar of the Attorney General’s Office explained that Wolfblack held that a sentence imposed after revocation ran concurrently with a sentence in another county, producing a shorter aggregate term than intended. The proposed statutory language aims to preserve the original sentencing court’s structure such that a revocation does not shorten overall time where courts had ordered sentences to run consecutively.
Support from county attorneys: Cascade County Attorney Josh Racki and the Montana County Attorneys Association supported the bill, saying it restores the pre‑Wolfblack understanding and removes incentives to breach suspended sentences. Racki described concrete examples in which revocation should not yield a benefit to the offender.
Public‑defender concerns: Alex Pyle, a public defender testifying on his own behalf, objected to some draft language and warned it could create further confusion. Pyle proposed an alternative drafting approach to add a clarifying subsection to existing statute 46‑18‑203 to avoid ambiguity between revocation courts and the later sentencing court’s authority over concurrency or consecutivity determinations.
Committee discussion and disposition: Committee members asked about operational impacts on public defenders and the Department of Corrections; the state public defender’s office indicated minimal fiscal impact on its operations but acknowledged sentencing consequences could change prison time depending on how courts apply the statute. The sponsor waived closing and the transcript records no committee vote during the hearing.
