Case Title: SPURLOCK v CRIST

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-07-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 14701 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1980 JAMES C. SPURLOCK, P e t i t i o n e r , -vs- R O G E R W. CRIST, Warden, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING Counsel of Record : For P e t i t i o n e r : Fred Van Valke~.kurg, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert Deschamps, 111, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted: February 2 8 , 1980 Decided: J#L 9 1 9 8 D M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of habeas corpus i n t h i s Court on February 1 4 , 1979. This Court ordered t h e w r i t heard by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of Missoula, and t h e Honorable Robert M. Holter assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r an e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. A hearing was held on June 6 , 1979, and J u l y 17, 1979. Find- i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of l a w denying t h e w r i t w e r e f i l e d October 30, 1979. These f i n d i n g s and conclusions have been appealed t o t h i s Court, and t h e matter has been accepted f o r d e c i s i o n on b r i e f s . P e t i t i o n e r and a companion, one Leonard Doney, w e r e a r r e s t e d on January 18, 1972, e i g h t years ago, and charged with four counts of robbery, a l l of which w e r e a l l e g e d l y committed during t h e e a r l y morning hours of January 18, 1972. A f t e r a high-speed chase, p e t i t i o n e r w a s a r r e s t e d and, while i n custody and s i t t i n g i n t h e r e a r s e a t of a p o l i c e c a r , was i d e n t i f i e d by one of t h e victims. After t r i a l and conviction, t h e conviction w a s appealed t o t h i s Court and submitted November 30, 1972, a f t e r o r a l argument. On February 20, 1973, a unanimous Court affirmed t h e judgment and conviction. S t a t e v. Spurlock (1973), 161 Mont. 388, 506 P.2d 842. Following are some excerpts of p r e t r i a l f a c t s from t h e p r i o r opinion of t h i s Court: "The record i n d i c a t e s t h a t on January 28, 1972, an Information w a s f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t charging each defendant with four counts of robbery upon f o u r Missoula f i l l i n g s t a t i o n s committed on January 18, 1972. D. R. Matthews, Esq., Missoula Public Defender, w a s appointed by t h e c o u r t as counsel and he represented both defendants i n a l l s t a g e s of p r e t r i a l proceed- ings. Both defendants entered p l e a s of not g u i l t y and t r i a l was set f o r May 4 , 1972. B a i l was f i x e d i n t h e amount of $15,000 ( l a t e r re- duced t o $12,500) f o r defendant Spurlock and i n t h e amount of $12,500 f o r defendant Doney. N e i - t h e r defendant w a s a b l e t o p o s t b a i l . "Defendant Doney requested a p s y c h i a t r i c examina- t i o n and w a s admitted t o the s t a t e h o s p i t a l a t Warm Springs on February 2, 1972, remaining t h e r e about t h i r t y days. An examination was performed and a r e p o r t submitted t o t h e court. "On March 13, 1972, defendant Spurlock f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of t r i a l judge Hon. E m m e t Glore, which was granted. The cause was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e c o u r t of Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee. "On A p r i l 5, 1972, defendant Spurlock submitted motions f o r a p s y c h i a t r i c examination by a lo- c a l p s y c h i a t r i s t and f o r s e p a r a t e counsel. Both motions w e r e denied. Subsequent testimony by Spurlock's wife i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had been t o Warm Springs f o r treatment and/or examination on some previous occasion and t h a t he d i d n o t wish t o r e t u r n there. "On A p r i l 6, 1972, defendant Doney p e t i t i o n e d I t h e c o u r t pro se f o r a w r i t of habeas corpus based on v i o l a t i o n of h i s r i g h t s a t a prelimi- nary examination f o r probable cause. Judge Jack L. Green, s i t t i n g f o r Judge E. Gardner Brownlee, heard t h e p e t i t i o n on A p r i l 6, 1972, with p e t i t i o n e r p r e s e n t i n c o u r t and represented by p u b l i c defender D. R. Matthews, h i s attorney. A f t e r argument t h e w r i t was denied. "On May 3, 1972, one day preceding t h e t r i a l d a t e , t h e defendants through t h e i r appointed counsel, D. R. Matthews, entered four motions requesting: "1. Withdrawal of c o u r t appointed counsel. " 2. Separate trials. " 3 . Separate counsel. "4. A Continuance. "The requested continuance w a s f o r t h e claimed purpose of allowing t h e i r counsel t i m e t o pre- pare t h e i r defense, and t o o b t a i n a p s y c h i a t r i c evaluation f o r defendant Spurlock. [Emphasis supplied.] "The c o u r t denied a l l four motions. However, p r i o r t o t r i a l on May 4 , 1972, t h e motion f o r withdrawal of counsel was granted and Robert J. Campbell, Esq. w a s entered as counsel. I n granting t h i s motion, t h e c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y questioned both defendants a f t e r making them aware t h a t t h e i r o t h e r motions (including t h e motion f o r a continuance) would n o t be granted, as t o whether they would s t i l l p r e f e r t o have Robert J. Campbell s u b s t i t u t e d a s counsel re- placing D. R. Matthews. Both defendants s t a t e d they so preferred. The c o u r t then suggested t h a t Matthews remain t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the de- fense and requested both defendants' permission before M r . Matthews w a s permitted t o leave. Both defendants gave t h a t permission. " A t t h e t i m e t h e c o u r t was considering t h e re- q u e s t f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of counsel, M r . Matthews s t a t e d : 'They have t o l d m e a b s o l u t e l y nothing. They w i l l n o t confide i n m e , t h e r e has been no communication a t a l l . ' " I n t h e i r appeal b r i e f , defendants s t a t e d ' P r i o r t o t r i a l t h e defendants remained i n t h e Missoula County j a i l and sought p r i v a t e counsel a s b e s t they could.' The record does n o t support t h i s statement. I t does n o t d i s c l o s e t h a t defendants o r anyone a c t i n g i n t h e i r behalf, contacted o r w e r e refused by any a t t o r n e y p r i o r t o t h e i r contacting M r . Campbell, who d i d take t h e i r case. It does n o t d i s c l o s e t h a t defendants w e r e refused permission t o c o n t a c t any a t t o r n e y while they were i n j a i l . I t does d i s c l o s e t h a t M r . Campbell was contacted f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e by M r s . Spurlock a t 4:15 p.m. on May 3, 1972, over t h r e e months a f t e r t h e arraignment of de- fendants and on t h e afternoon before t h e t r i a l date." S t a t e v. Spurlock, supra, 161 Mont. a t 389-391, 506 P.2d a t 842-843. The following i s s u e s have been presented t o t h i s Court f o r review: 1. Whether t h e requirement of j o i n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of p e t i t i o n e r and a codefendant over timely o b j e c t i o n neces- s i t a t e s a r e v e r s a l of p e t i t i o n e r ' s conviction. 2. Whether p e t i t i o n e r w a s denied e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel p r i o r t o t r i a l and, i f so, whether such d e n i a l a f f e c t e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s due process r i g h t s so a s t o n e c e s s i t a t e a r e v e r s a l of h i s conviction. 3 . Whether p e t i t i o n e r w a s subjected t o an impermis- s i b l e showup subsequent t o h i s a r r e s t . 4. Whether p e t i t i o n e r was given inadequate n o t i c e of t r i a l , w a s improperly required t o go t o t r i a l j o i n t l y with h i s codefendant, and was improperly denied a continuance i n h i s t r i a l so a s t o n e c e s s i t a t e a r e v e r s a l of h i s conviction. 5. Whether t h e f a i l u r e t o provide p e t i t i o n e r with a t r a n s c r i p t of proceedings and f a i l u r e of t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r t o f i l e h i s notes with t h e c l e r k of c o u r t v i o l a t e p e t i t i - t i o n e r ' s r i g h t t o due process so a s t o n e c e s s i t a t e a r e v e r s a l of h i s conviction. 6. Whether t h e f a i l u r e t o provide p e t i t i o n e r with a n opportunity t o examine t h e presentence r e p o r t and cross- examine any witnesses with r e s p e c t t h e r e t o n e c e s s i t a t e s t h e vacation of p e t i t i o n e r ' s sentence and removal f o r resentencing. I s s u e s 1, 2 and 4 were previously l i t i g a t e d i n t h i s Court on t h e argued appeal, S t a t e v. Spurlock, supra, and w i l l n o t be reviewed a second t i m e on appeal. I s s u e 3 concerns t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n t h e p o l i c e v e h i c l e on t h e n i g h t of t h e crime. Courts have u n i v e r s a l l y held t h a t a showup i s n o t unlawfully suggestive where t h e confrontation w a s conducted s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e commission of t h e crime. I n S t o v a l l v. Denno (1967), 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court approved an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n showup where t h e defendant was brought t o t h e v i c t i m ' s h o s p i t a l room s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e crime was committed. Similarly, where t h e defendant was immediately returned t o t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e crime and placed i n a p a t r o l wagon and while he w a s i n s i d e t h e v e h i c l e he was viewed by t h e complaining witnesses, one of whom s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d him as her a t t a c k e r , the c o u r t held i n Bates v. United S t a t e s (1968), 132 App.D.C. 36, 405 F.2d 1104, t h a t t h e defendant's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , which was introduced a t t h e t r i a l , w a s n o t t h e r e s u l t of an unnecessarily suggestive confrontation and d i d not, t h e r e f o r e , deny him due process. See a l s o 39 A.L.R.3d 791. I n regard t o I s s u e 5, t h e m a t t e r of a f r e e t r a n s c r i p t , p e t i t i o n e r ' s argument on t h i s p o i n t seems t o be t h a t he w a s denied a t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t and hence, due process, s i n c e t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r ' s notes were kept with t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r r a t h e r than t h e c l e r k of c o u r t . I n f a c t , t h e reason he w a s denied a t r a n s c r i p t i s set o u t i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court's Finding of F a c t No. I1 a s follows: ". . . U n t i l t h e f i l i n g of t h i s p e t i t i o n , t h e p e t i t i o n e r had acted i n concert with h i s code- fendant, Leonard E. Doney, i n attempting t o g e t a f r e e t r a n s c r i p t , b u t u n t i l t h e p r e s e n t p e t i - t i o n , n e i t h e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r nor Doney had al- leged anything t o warrant moving any c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o order a f r e e t r a n s c r i p t prepared, as evidenced by an order of Judge Brownlee dated October 11, 1973, and f i l e d i n t h i s cause and an order by Judge Russell Smith dated January 17, 1979, and entered i n Federal D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e D i s t r i c t of Montana, cause no. 2392." Whatever t h e l e g a l i t y o r wisdom of c o u r t r e p o r t e r s keeping t h e i r notes, t h a t p r a c t i c e d i d n o t deny p e t i t i o n e r a t r a n s c r i p t , nor does t h e matter c o n s t i t u t e any c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l i s s u e mandating any r e l i e f f o r p e t i t i o n e r . I s s u e 6 claims e r r o r due t o i r r e g u l a r i t i e s with r e s p e c t t o p e t i t i o n e r ' s presentence r e p o r t . P e t i t i o n e r was con- v i c t e d of four counts of robbery and was sentenced under t h e provisions of former s e c t i o n 95-1506, R.C.M. 1947, providing f o r increased punishment based on p r i o r convictions. H e received a sentence of f i f t y years i n t h e Montana S t a t e Prison. P e t i t i o n e r now s t a t e s he w a s prejudiced because he claims he d i d n o t have an opportunity t o examine t h e pre- sentence r e p o r t p r i o r t o sentencing nor t o cross-examine witnesses with r e s p e c t t o t h e r e p o r t . The p r i n c i p a l p o i n t i n connection with t h i s i s s u e i s t h e f a c t t h a t p e t i t i o n e r has not pointed t o a s i n g l e e r r o r o r ambiguity i n h i s presentence r e p o r t . This Court has previously held t h a t a convicted defendant has a due process guarantee a g a i n s t a sentence predicated on misinformation, b u t he cannot complain i f t h e information i n a presentence r e p o r t is true. S t a t e v. Osborn (1976), 170 Mont. 480, 555 P.2d 509. That i s c l e a r l y t h e case here. Unless p e t i t i o n e r can show something erroneous i n t h e presentence r e p o r t , he w i l l n o t be granted a resentencing. The f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of l a w of t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e affirmed and accepted; t h e w r i t of habeas corpus i s dismissed. / & J u s t i c e x % W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e \ J u s t i c e s