Dean Sharp has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
indicating several reasons about why his sentence is illegal
and requesting his immediate release. Sharp raises claims
about his ability to pay restitution, credit for time served,
his plea, his counsel, and due process. The Assistant
Attorney General for the State of Montana has filed a
response addressing Sharp's claims of restitution and
credit for time served, in compliance with our March 27, 2019
State provides more details of Sharp's background. Sharp
had two criminal proceedings in the Ninth Judicial District
Court, Toole County. On June I, 2010, Sharp entered guilty
pleas to aggravated assault and criminal endangerment in
exchange for the dismissal of four other felonies. The
District Court sentenced him to the Montana State Prison
(MSP) for twenty years with ten years suspended for
aggravated assault and to a consecutive MSP ten-year term
with five years suspended for criminal endangerment. The
District Court also accepted his guilty plea to felony
assault of a peace officer or judicial officer and sentenced
Sharp to a consecutive ten-year term with five years
suspended. The aggregate sentence was forty years at MSP with
twenty years suspended. The court found that Sharp shall pay
restitution in the amount of $14, 896.82 and granted Sharp
434 days of credit of time served spanning from his arrest to
argues that his sentence is illegal. Sharp alleges that his
restitution was imposed contrary to §§ 46-18-241
through -249, MCA. He states that the PSI "was void of
required documentation." He specifically states that it
was "VOID of defendant's financial resources and
future ability to pay" under § 46-18-242, MCA.
(Emphasis in original.) Sharp also contends that the
Department of Corrections (DOC) has incorrectly applied his
credit of 434 days of time served when it calculated his
parole eligibility date.
State responds that Sharp has failed to meet his burden for a
writ to issue and that his petition should be denied. The
State explains that, first, the DOC has correctly applied
Sharp's credit of 434 days to his sentence and that
amount is not what is affecting his parole eligibility date.
The State points out that when Sharp was sentenced on August
12, 2010, the District Court imposed a ten-year parole
restriction "as of today's date." The State
points to this parole ineligibility restriction or mandate,
which would be effective until August 9, 2020. The State
concludes that Sharp's parole eligibility date is
calculated correctly because it is based on the court's
ten-year parole restriction.
the State contends that Sharp has no claim concerning his
ability to pay restitution because, pursuant to §
46-18-242(1), MCA, the information was included in
Sharp's presentence investigation report (PSI). The State
provides that the PSI's author included an examination of
Sharp's finances, listing Sharp's employment and wage
prior to his incarceration and his assets and liabilities.
Section 46-18-242(1)(a), MCA. The State discusses that the
PSI's author complied with the requirements in this
statute by including affidavits from the victims and a
specific description of the victims' pecuniary loss.
Section 46-18-242(1)(b), MCA. The State further concludes
that Sharp's sentence does not exceed statutory limits
and that Sharp has not demonstrated legal cause for relief.
Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279, ¶ 22, 334 Mont.
270, 150 P.3d 337; Miller v. Eleventh Judicial Dist.
Ct, 2007 MT 58, ¶ 14, 336 Mont. 207, 154 P.3d 1186.
the State's arguments persuasive. Sharp does not have an
illegal sentence. Turning to his other claims about his
change of plea, double jeopardy violation, and due process
concerns, Sharp brings them too late and by way of the wrong
remedy. Sharp did not timely appeal his 2010 conviction and
sentence, and he is precluded from raising such issues now.
Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. This Court has twice denied
Sharp's attempts to appeal his convictions and sentences,
and he has exhausted this remedy. State v. Sharp,
No. DA 13-0581, Order denying petition for out-of-time appeal
(Mont. Sept. 25, 2013) and State v. Sharp, No. DA
15-0100, Order denying petition for out-of-time appeal (Mont.
Mar. 5, 2015). We lastly point out, as the State correctly
references, that this Court affirmed the Toole County
District Court's decision denying Sharp's motion to
reconsider his 2018 petition for postconviction relief as
such relief is time-barred and procedurally barred. Sharp
v. State, 2019 MT 240N, ¶¶ 2, 10-12, 2019
Mont. LEXIS 570. Sharp is not entitled to habeas corpus
relief or his immediate release. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Sharp's Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record and ...