himself, Jason Bryan Martin petitions this Court for habeas
corpus relief from his recent sentence upon revocation from
the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Hill County. He requests
his immediate release and contends that he is incarcerated
illegally because his sentence commencement and discharge
dates are incorrect.
has convictions from both federal and state courts. On
February 10, 2014, the Hill County District Court sentenced
Martin to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for a two-year
suspended term for felony assault with a weapon. The court
ran this sentence consecutively to his existing federal
sentence and credited him with twenty-eight days served.
to Martin and available electronic records, Martin discharged
his federal sentence on April 18, 2017, and commenced serving
his suspended sentence the next day, April 19, 2017. The
State filed a petition to revoke on May 18, 2017, based on
Martin's alleged violations of his probationary
conditions. Finding that Martin had violated his conditions,
the court revoked Martin's suspended term on June 20,
2017, and imposed a two-year commitment to DOC with a
recommendation for appropriate program placement, The court
also credited Martin with thirty-nine days of time previously
maintains that DOC's calculation of his sentence is
incorrect. He argues that his original sentence commencement
date is February 10, 2014, instead of May 12, 2017, and that
his discharge date should be February 10, 2016, not May 12,
2019. He states that these are the "true" dates.
Martin fails to realize is that his "true" dates do
not exist after the court revoked his 2014 original sentence.
The District Court sentenced Martin upon revocation under
§ 46-18-203(7)(a)(iii), MCA (2011). The court had the
authority to impose this valid sentence. Martin has a new
sentence as of June 20, 2017, which gives rise to new dates,
The court credited Martin with thirty-nine days for time
spent in a detention center or jail. As explained by DOC in
Martin's attached sentence calculation, the court's
credit of thirty-nine days are subtracted from the June 20,
2017 sentence commencement date, which yields a start date of
May 12, 2017. Martin's discharge date subsequently
becomes May 12, 2019.
reliance upon a Montana case and statute are unavailing for
his arguments that the sentence commencement date should be
when judgment of conviction was entered and that he is due
time between his original sentencing and its subsequent
revocation. See State ex rel Wetzel v. Ellsworth,
143 Mont. 54, 387 P.2d 442 (1963) and § 46-23-1012, MCA.
Wetzel has since been over-ruled. Petition
o/Ledesma, 167 Mont. 536, 542 P.2d 1226 (1975).
"The purpose of the statute is to give the detention
center timely written authority to hold the
probationer[.]" State v. Rossbach, 2016 MT 189,
¶ 11, 3 84 Mont. 269, 378 P.3d 1160. Section 46-23-1012
also refers to the court's statutory authority for
revocation of sentences under § 46-18-203, MCA. Section
is not due any time toward his consecutively-run suspended
sentence while serving his federal sentence from February
2014 to April 18, 2017. Section 46-18-401(1), MCA. As Martin
points out, he began serving his suspended sentence on April
19, 2017, and violated a month later. It is within the
court's discretion to credit Martin with any street time
or time on probation. Section 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA;
Gundrum v. Mahoney, 2001 MT 246, ¶ 19, 307
Mont. 96, 36 P.3d 890. After finding that Martin violated his
probationary conditions, the court concluded Martin "has
demonstrated that he is a poor candidate for community
supervision .. .."
is doubly constrained here. He has not carried his burden of
persuasion as required in a habeas corpus proceeding. In
re Hart, 178 Mont. 235, 239, 583 P.2d 411, 413 (1978);
M. R. App. P. 14(5). Nor can Martin challenge the legality of
his sentence received upon revocation. Section 46-22-101(2),
MCA. Martin has received all the credit he was due under the
law, and his sentence calculation is not incorrect.
Therefore, he is not incarcerated illegally, and he is not
entitled to any habeas corpus relief. Section 46-22-101, MCA.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is DENIED.
Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record, and to Jason Bryan Martin.
 Recently, Martin also filed a notice
of appeal of an underlying Hill County Justice Court matter.
State v. ...