Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sharp v. Guyer

Supreme Court of Montana

November 19, 2019

DARRELL DEAN SHARP, Petitioner,
v.
LYNN GUYER, Warden, Montana State Prison, Respondent.

          ORDER

         Darrell 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 Order.

         The 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 sentencing.

         Sharp 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.

         The 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.

         Next, 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.

         We find 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.

         The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.