State v. Christianson

¶1 Curtis Jerome Christianson appeals from the amended judgment and sentence entered by the District Court. He contends that the District Court’s restriction on his parole eligibility was unlawful. We affirm.

¶2 The issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court’s restriction of Christianson’s parole eligibility complied with § 46-18-115(6), MCA, and § 46-18-202(2), MCA. To resolve this issue, we address three sub-issues:

¶3 1. Did the District Court violate § 46-18-115(6), MCA, by failing to state in open court its reasons for restricting Christianson’s parole eligibility?

¶4 2. Was the…