Trial judges are granted broad discretion to determine the appropriate punishment for offenses. On appeal we will not review a sentence for mere inequity or disparity. Rather, this Court will only review a criminal sentence for its legality; that is, whether the sentence is within statutory parameters. A trial court's statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review to determine whether it is correct. State v. Webb, 2005 MT 5, ¶ 8, 325 Mont. 317, 106 P.3d 521.
We review criminal sentences that include at least one year of actual incarceration for legality only. The term "legality" in this context signifies that we will not review a sentence for mere inequity or disparity. Rather, our review is confined to determining whether the sentencing court had statutory authority to impose the sentence, whether the sentence falls within the parameters set by the applicable sentencing statutes, and whether the court adhered to the affirmative mandates of the applicable sentencing statutes. We have characterized this "legality" standard more generally as reviewing for correctness. The question is one of law and the determination is whether the district court interpreted the law correctly. This determination is a question of law and, as such, our review is de novo. State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 174, 338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815.
With two narrow exceptions, our review of criminal sentences is for legality only. Under the first exception, if a defendant is sentenced to serve less than one year of actual incarceration, we review the sentence both for legality and for abuse of discretion. Under the second exception, if a defendant challenges a sentencing condition, we first review the condition's legality, and then review for an abuse of discretion the condition's reasonableness under the particular facts of the case. City of Bozeman v. Cantu, 2013 MT 40, ¶ 10, 369 Mont. 81, 296 P.3d 461.