Mauhar requests motion to remove parole eligibility requirement

Back in September 2006, Jesse James Mauhar was sentenced to 17 years in prison for the Negligent Homicide of Matt Palagi, as well as for stabbing three young men who attempted to come to his aid. District Judge Ed McLean ruled him ineligible for parole until he completed six requirements, which included obtaining a GED, completing chemical dependency and other counseling, take advantage of vocational training and successfully complete the prison “Boot Camp” program.

Recently, however, Mauhar requested that he be released from the condition that he complete vocational training in order to be eligible for parole from the Montana State Prison. Mineral County Attorney Shaun Donovan has filed a response with the State District Court opposing the request of Jesse James Mauhar to be released from one of the six conditions.

In his motion filed January 5, 2010, Mauhar’s attorney, David Stenerson, argued that the original requirement that his client “… complete any vocational training offered by the Montana State Prison” could take several years and was “unclear.” He requested the vocational training requirement be “…deleted from the Judgment [so] Mr. Mauhar will be able to enter and complete Boot Camp and would then be eligible for parole.”

In his Response, filed on behalf of the State of Montana, Donovan reminded the Court that the six conditions of parole eligibility were taken verbatim from the plea agreement and were all supported by findings and recommendations in the Pre-Sentence Report and accompanying psychological evaluation of Mauhar reviewed at the time of sentencing. He went on to argue that although “… a more exact specification of the vocational educational requirement may have been ideal, it is abundantly clear that some substantial vocational training was required.”

Donovan concludes by stating, “Because of the crime he committed and because of his personal, psychological, chemical dependency, family and vocational deficits, Jesse Mauhar is a young man who, for his own sake, as well as that of society, needs to be held to the strict terms of the Judgment originally fashioned by the Court to deal with those issues.”

A response from the presiding judge, either deciding the motion or setting a hearing date, is expected within the next few weeks to attend to this matter.