only on the sentence and bare demographic facts of the offender and those that we can tell are unconstitutional only after individualized consideration. This is unfair. A sentence that lacks penological justification is disproportionate and violates the Eighth Amendment regardless of the analysis required to reach that conclusion. To extend and withhold the protections of the Eighth Amendment based on how closely we must examine the circumstances is an untenable and unfair basis for Constitutional protections. e. Finality does not justify nonretroactivity in this case ¶79 The plurality’s decision results in an unfair distinction. Given the level of importance we give fairness and remediation in Montana habeas corpus proceedings, only a strong countervaili 339 Mont. 281, 169 P.3d 698 (<HOLDING>). While this statement taken alone may be
holding that res judicata does not prevent this court from correcting a facially illegal sentence holding term illegal sentence is reserved for instances where sentence exceeds statutory maximum holding that the sentence entered by the circuit court was illegal because the court had no authority to impose a sentence that exceeded the punishment fixed by the jury holding that probation does not constitute a sentence holding that if a criminal defendant alleges that his sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory mandates this court will review the sentence even if the defendant failed to make a timely objection in the district court