Case Title: RYAN v CRIST

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-05-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13480 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 DONALD E . RYAN, Petitioner and Appellant, VS. ROGER CRIST, WARDEN, Respondent and Appellee. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Donald E. Ryan, Pro Se, Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondent: Michael Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Argument waived and submitted on briefs. Submitted: January 14, 1977 Decided : ~ p y - 9 1 9 7 7 c- Filed: M Y - 9 1977 , - 9 Clerk tv~r. ' t s c i c d 3 d ~ l i e l 2 . sned 3eLiveied :he dpiliio~l > f irhe Court. 3eielldant appeals from an order of the d i s t r i c t court, Yelluwscone County, refusing t o vacate a 10 year sentence imposed ror three counts of grand larceny. He contends t h a t i n imposing t h i s sentence the d i s t r i c t court improperly considered h i s p r i o r Celony record because defendant did not have counsel when the obtained the convictions. The s t a t e does not dispute t h a t he did not have counsel a t the time. The f a c t s leading t o defendant's claim are: O n July 27, L9/3, Jefendant pleaded g u i l t y to three counts of grand larceny d i d the J i s t r i c t court deferred imposition of sentence f o r one year. (The pre-sentence report showed defendant did have a p r i o r felony record, although there was no indication defendant was then without counsel). Almost a year l a t e r , on July 8, 1974, the Yellowstone Jounty attorney f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r revocation of the deferred ,=~itence alleging defendant committed the crime of larceny while SJLI probation. Defendant was represented a t the revocation hearing by a public defender. After hearing, the d i s t r i c t court revoked the deferred sentence and imposed a 10 year prison sentence. O n appeal t h i s Court affirmed on an issue not related t o t h i s present appeal. S t a t e v. Ryan, 166 Mont. 41-9, 533 P.2d 1076. While serving h i s time i n prison, defendant f i l e d a pro se proceeding with the sentencing court seeking t o vacate h i s 10 year sentence. He claimed he was e n t i t l e d t o be resentenced because the d i s r r i c t court improperly considered h i s felony record acquired before he pleaded g u i l t y t o the three counts of grand larceny. Defendant claimed t h i s t o be i l l e g a l , because he did not have counsel representing him. Upon receiving t h i s claim the d i s t r i c t court appointed the p u b l i c deiender to r e p ~ r s e n c ilei-e~rclant (the same public defender who had represented defendant a t the probation revocation hearing cind on the previous appeal). Defendant was not returned from prison t o p a r t i c i p a t e a t the hearing. Although the d i s t r i c t court did not hold an evidentiary hearing, it i s c l e a r the s t a t e did not dispute t h a t defendant's previous felony record was constitutionally infirm because he did rlot have counsel representing him. Accordingly, under those c i r - cumstances the d i s t r i c t court could not consider those previous telonies a s a basis f o r sentencing the defendant, a f t e r he had pleaded g u i l t y t o the l a t e r felonies. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L ed 2d 592. A s a b a s i s f o r keeping the sentence a t 10 years the d i s t r i c t court simply concluded the sentence would have been the same even i f he had not considered defendant's p r i o r felony record. W e have no way of knowing t h e processes used by the d i s t r i c t court judge i n i n i t i a l l y imposing Lhe 10 year sentence. Defendant, f i l i n g h i s b r i e f s pro s e , r a i s e s several issues but since we reverse and remand f o r resentencing we need only consider the issue of the previous felony convictions obtained while defendant was not represented by counsel. It i s c l e a r t h a t a sentencing court cannot r e l y upon a previuas criminal record i n sentencing i f t h a t record contains constitutionally infirm convictions. United States v. Tucker, supra. It i s undisputed here t h a t defendant was not represented by counsel when he was convicted of the previous felonies. However, the s t a t e contends the 10 year sentence imposed when h i s felony record was exposed t o the sentencing judge was cured when the d i s t r i c t judge stated the sentence would have been the same, even i-il ' ~ d hdJ 1 1 i ) t ' ~ I ~ U \ N ~ I JL fzhe p ~ e v i c ) u s f e l u ~ 1 ~ convictions. That i s not enough. There i s nothing i n the record t o support t h a t t ~ o s i t i o n , nor do w e think it i s the proper way of handling the .ituation. Apparently several federal courts have taken the position siniilar t o t h a t urged by the s t a t e . Lipscomb v. Clark, 468 F.2d 1.321 (5th C i r . ) ; Russo v. United S t a t e s , 470 F.2d 1357 (5th Cir.); Yilsey v. United States, 496 F.2d 619 (2d Ciz); United States v. Yermann, 524 F.2d 1103 (2d Cir.). The theory is t h a t the process ' 1 . ~ ~ been purified by the sentencing c o u r t ' s determination t h a t the 3e~itence he o r i g i n a l l y handed down would s t i l l be the same i f he had not had improper information before him. A defendant i s ~ i ~ l y e n t i t l e d t o be resentenced i f the sentencing court concludes Lhe improper information might have affected the sentence. W e lo .lot adopt t h i s approach. W e hold t h a t where it i s shown improper matters have been brought before the sentencing court f o r i t s consideration i n se~itencing, and where those matters a r e not disclosed and explained ~t the sentencing hearing, a defendant has a r i g h t t o be resentenced. This i s the best way of preserving the i n t e g r i t y of the sentencing process. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s reversed and t h i s case i s remanded t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r resentencing. - - . Chief J u s t i c e