assault. The court issued its final order of judgment and commitment on August 27, 1997. Brown filed a notice of appeal on October 21, 1997. DISCUSSION Issue One ¶7 Is Brown’s double jeopardy challenge properly before this Court when it was not raised in the District Court? ¶8 The State of Montana (State) contends that Brown’s double jeopardy challenge is not reviewable. The State cites State v. Lafley, 1998 MT 21, ¶ 26, 287 Mont. 276, ¶ 26, 954 P.2d 1112, ¶ 26, for the rule that “[i]n a direct appeal, the defendant is limited to those issues that were properly preserved in the district court and to allegations that the sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory mandates.” See also Sections 46-20-104(2) and -701(2), MCA and State v. Lenihan (1979), 184 Mont. 338, 343, 602 P.2d 997, 1000 (<HOLDING>). A sentence is not illegal if it is within the
holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable 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 holding term illegal sentence is reserved for instances where sentence exceeds statutory maximum holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence