State v. R. Dennison

04/11/2017
DA 16-0036
Case Number: DA 16-0036
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2017 MT 87N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
RANDALL ALAN DENNISON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DC-05-170(A)
Honorable Amy Eddy, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Randall Alan Dennison (Self-Represented), Deer Lodge, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Ed Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: March 15, 2017
Decided: April 11, 2017
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Randall Alan Dennison appeals from the District Court’s Order of Revocation,
Judgment and Sentence entered January 14, 2016. We affirm.
¶3 In 2000 Dennison was convicted of burglary and in 2005 he was convicted of
driving under the influence of alcohol. The sentence for the DUI ran consecutively to the
sentence for the burglary. In September 2015 Dennison discharged his burglary sentence
and began serving the DUI sentence. Dennison quickly violated the conditions of the
suspended DUI sentence and admitted the violations at a subsequent revocation hearing.
The District Court entered the order appealed from, committing Dennison to the
Department of Corrections. The District Court gave Dennison credit for 61 days of
confinement and noted that he previously received credit for 442 days confinement.
¶4 Dennison does not contend that the revocation of his DUI suspended sentence based
upon admitted violations was improper or illegal, but nonetheless raises thirty (30) issues
on appeal. A large proportion of Dennison’s issues in the present appeal relate to credit
for time served. This Court is familiar with Dennison’s complaints about his confinement,
and just last year concluded that he “is not entitled to any more time served in any capacity
2
since 2005.” Dennison v. State, No. OP 16-0020, Or. denying petition for habeas corpus
relief (Mont. Jan. 19, 2016). See also State v. Dennison, 2008 MT 344, 346 Mont. 295,
194 P.3d 704. These issues were decided in the past and will not be considered again. We
reject as unfounded Dennison’s contention that § 46-18-403, MCA, relating to credit for
time served, is unconstitutional.
¶5 Dennison contends that there were fatal clerical errors in the District Court’s
revocation order but he has not demonstrated that any of these errors affected his
substantial rights. He is therefore not entitled to any relief. Dennison contends that the
District Court abused its discretion by appointing stand-by counsel in the revocation
proceedings, but again has not demonstrated that this affected his substantial rights. He is
therefore not entitled to any relief. Dennison contends that the District Court abused its
discretion by not providing him with copies of documents that he requested. He has not
demonstrated that this affected his substantial rights and is therefore not entitled to any
relief.
¶6 Dennison contends that he actually discharged the 2005 DUI sentence prior to the
revocation proceedings in 2015. It is clear that the burglary and DUI sentences ran
consecutively and that Dennison did not discharge the DUI sentence prior to revocation.
The District Court properly sentenced Dennison, properly imposed conditions and properly
revoked the suspended sentence. See Dennison v. Law, No. OP 09-0432, 2009 Mont.
LEXIS 726 (Sept. 29, 2009).
¶7 We reject any other issues raised in this appeal as unsupported, waived, or
previously decided.
3
¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
Court, this case presents issues controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review.
¶9 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
4