Case Title: STATE v ALLEN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-12-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-269 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS . GEORGE ALLEN, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Sherlock and Nardi, Kalispell, Montana Stephen J. Nardi argued and William E. Hileman argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Won. Mike Greely , Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ted 0 . Lympus, County Attorney, argued, Kalispell, Montana Mark Higgins argued, student practioner, Missoula, Montana Submitted: December 7, 1981 ~ecided:@~ ''' I m Y # Clerk M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendant a p p e a l s from a judgment of t h e District Court c o n v i c t i n g him of t h e crime of s e x u a l a s s a u l t f o l l o w i n g a p l e a of g u i l t y , s e n t e n c i n g him to 20 y e a r s imprisonment, and denying h i s motion to set a s i d e t h e s e n t e n c e or to allow him to withdraw h i s p l e a of g u i l t y . The u n d e r l y i n g i s s u e i n t h i s case is whether t h e prose- c u t i n g a t t o r n e y v i o l a t e d a p l e a b a r g a i n agreement t h e r e b y d e p r i v i n g d e f e n d a n t of due p r o c e s s of l a w . On May 27 1980, a c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d i n t h e J u s t i c e C o u r t of Flathead County, Montana, c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t George A l l e n w i t h t w o c o u n t s of s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t and o n e count of i n c e s t . Defendant was a r r e s t e d , bound o v e r to t h e D i s t r i c t Court on one c o u n t of s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t , a f e l o n y , and b a i l was set i n t h e amount of $45,000. On J u l y 1 4 , an i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e District Court o f F l a t h e a d County c h a r g i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t , a f e l o n y , i n v o l v i n g a r e g u l a r c o u r s e of conduct w i t h h i s d a u g h t e r , age under 1 6 , commencing i n 1977 and con- t i n u i n g t o and i n c l u d i n g September, 1979. Defendant appeared w i t h c o u n s e l a t t h e a r r a i g n m e n t on J u l y 1 5 , 1980, a t which t i m e a n amended i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t w i t h s e x u a l a s s a u l t , a f e l o n y . Defendant e n t e r e d a p l e a of g u i l t y and was r e l e a s e d on h i s own r e c o g n i z a n c e t o p e r m i t h i s admission to t h e V e t e r a n s H o s p i t a l i n S h e r i d a n , Wyoming, f o r d i a g n o s i s and treat- ment of any p h y s i c a l or mental problem, and t h e h e a r i n g i n aggra- v a t i o n or m i t i g a t i o n of punishment w a s c o n t i n u e d pending comple- t i o n of a t r e a t m e n t program and a r e p o r t from t h a t h o s p i t a l . On November 3 , 1980, a s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g was h e l d i n a g g r a v a t i o n or m i t i g a t i o n of punishment. On t h e same d a t e judgment was e n t e r e d f i n d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y of s e x u a l a s s a u l t , s e n t e n c i n g him to 20 y e a r s imprisonment, d e s i g n a t i n g him a nondangerous o f f e n d e r f o r p a r o l e p u r p o s e s , committing him t o t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n f o r a 45-day e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t , and p r o v i d i n g f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of any p o s s i b l e s u s p e n s i o n of s e n t e n c e and i n c a r c e r a t i o n p r i o r t o any p r o b a t i o n . On J a n u a r y 7 , 1981, t h e d e f e n d a n t reappeared b e f o r e t h e District Court w i t h c o u n s e l and a f u r t h e r s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g was h e l d . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h e r e o f t h e District Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p r i o r s e n t e n c e was r e a s o n a b l e and f a i r and l e f t it unchanged. On J a n u a r y 1 2 , d e f e n d a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e District Court to s e t a s i d e t h e s e n t e n c e or a l t e r n a t i v e l y t o be allowed to withdraw h i s p l e a of g u i l t y on t h e ground t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y f a i l e d t o f u l f i l l h i s promises made to t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a p l e a b a r g a i n agreement d a t e d J u l y 2 , 1980 , t h e r e b y denying d e f e n d a n t d u e p r o c e s s of l a w . On A p r i l 1 0 , 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court made f i n d i n g s of fact and c o n c l u s i o n s of law and e n t e r e d a n o r d e r denying d e f e n d a n t ' s p e t i t i o n . T h i s appeal followed. The record b e f o r e u s i n d i c a t e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g l e t t e r d a t e d J u l y 2, 1980, to t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y p r i o r to t h e f i l i n g of t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n and e n t r y o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a of g u i l t y : "Mr. Ted 0. Lympus County A t t o r n e y P. 0. Box 1516 K a l i s p e l l , Montana 59901 "RE: George A l l e n "Dear Ted: "As p e r o u r c o n v e r s a t i o n i n your o f f i c e on Monday I a m w r i t i n g t h i s letter to con£ i r m o u r agreement i n t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d matter. " I t is my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t your o f f i c e would be w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t a p l e a t o one c o u n t of s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t from my c l i e n t and i n r e t u r n would recommend to t h e c o u r t t h a t M r . A l l e n r e c e i v e a suspended s e n t e n c e for a p e r i o d of t e n to f i f t e e n y e a r s and t h a t s a i d s u s p e n s i o n be c o n d i t i o n a l upon h i s a t t e n d i n g and completing a t r e a t m e n t program a t t h e V e t e r a n s H o s p i t a l i n S h e r i d a n , Wyoming, f o r whatever time p e r i o d t h e y deem a p p r o p r i a t e and n e c e s s a r y . It is my understanding t h a t your o f f i c e w i l l n o t p r e s e n t t e s t i m o n y i n a g g r a v a t i o n of s e n t e n c e n o r oppose a withdrawal of t h e g u i l t y p l e a should o u r agreement n o t be followed by t h e c o u r t . " I f you have any a d d i t i o n s or c o r r e c t i o n s p l e a s e d o n ' t h e s i t a t e to c o n t a c t m e a t any t i m e . " S i n c e r e l y , "DALEY , SHERLOCK & NARD1 "By: "SJN:bra "bcc: William E. Hileman, Jr., Esq." The p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y acknowledges he made no w r i t t e n response t o t h i s letter. The d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y advised t h e D i s t r i c t Court a t t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g t h a t t h e agreement was o r a l l y amended t o a l l o w d e f e n d a n t to e n t e r a p l e a of g u i l t y to "sexual a s s a u l t " and t h a t t h e recommendation was t o be t h a t h i s e n t i r e s e n t e n c e be suspended. The p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y s t a t e d a t t h e t i m e t h a t he d i d n l t know what would be a good d i s p o s i t i o n a t t h a t t i m e and t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was amended because t h e o r i g i n a l c h a r g e r e q u i r e d a mandatory two-year p r i s o n s e n t e n c e which d e p r i v e d d e f e n d a n t of t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to show t h e judge t h a t he should n o t b e i n c a r c e r a t e d . The p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t it was h i s understanding t h a t both a t t o r n e y s would recommend t h e F o r t S h e r i d a n f a c i l i t y a s t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n was t h a t t h e r e t h e y c o u l d f i n d o u t what would be p r o p e r . H e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e " F o r t S h e r i d a n t h i n g " d i d n o t work o u t and t h e y were back i n c o u r t f o r t h e s e n t e n c i n g . H e s t a t e d t h a t he d i d n o t t h i n k t h e S t a t e had p r e s e n t e d a g g r a v a t i o n testimony a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g . The record shows t h a t t h e District Court advised t h e d e f e n d a n t p r i o r to a c c e p t i n g h i s p l e a of g u i l t y t h a t it would n o t be bound by any agreement between t h e county a t t o r n e y , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l or t h e d e f e n d a n t . The District Court i n d i c a t e d its sen- t e n c e w a s n o t dependent on any a g g r a v a t i n g or m i t i g a t i n g cir- cumstances submitted a t t h a t t i m e and s t a t e d t h e r e a s o n s f o r its s e n t e n c e . On a p p e a l , d e f e n d a n t contends t h a t he was induced t o e n t e r a p l e a of g u i l t y whereby he was to r e c e i v e a suspended sen- t e n c e because t h e p r o s e c u t o r agreed to a suspended s e n t e n c e con- d i t i o n a l on d e f e n d a n t ' s completion of a t r e a t m e n t program a t t h e V e t e r a n s H o s p i t a l i n S h e r i d a n , Wyoming, and t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r a g r e e d n o t to p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n a g g r a v a t i o n of s e n t e n c e n o r oppose withdrawal of t h e g u i l t y p l e a i f t h e i r agreement was n o t followed by t h e c o u r t . Defendant claims he f u l f i l l e d t h e agreement on h i s p a r t and t h e p r o s e c u t i o n v i o l a t e d t h i s agreement. The S t a t e d i s p u t e s t h i s . The day is long p a s t f o r c r e d i b l e argument a g a i n s t p l e a b a r g a i n i n g as a component of t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system i n t h i s c o u n t r y . N o less a u t h o r i t y t h a n t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court so h e l d a t l e a s t 1 0 y e a r s ago: "The d i s p o s i t i o n of c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s by agree- ment between t h e p r o s e c u t o r and t h e a c c u s e d , sometimes l o o s e l y c a l l e d ' p l e a b a r g a i n i n g , is a n e s s e n t i a l component of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e . P r o p e r l y a d m i n i s t e r e d , it is to be encouraged. I f e v e r y c r i m i n a l c h a r g e were sub- j e c t e d t o a f u l l scale t r i a l , t h e S t a t e s and t h e F e d e r a l Government would need to m u l t i p l y by many times t h e number of judges and c o u r t f a c i l i t i e s . " S a n t o b e l l o v. New York ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427. See also Brady v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747. However, p l e a b a r g a i n agreements presuppose fundamental f a i r n e s s i n s e c u r i n g such agreements between t h e accused and t h e p r o s e c u t o r : " T h i s phase of t h e p r o c e s s of c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e , and t h e a d j u d i c a t i v e element i n h e r e n t i n a c c e p t i n g a p l e a of g u i l t y , m u s t be a t t e n d e d by s a f e g u a r d s t o i n s u r e t h e d e f e n d a n t what is r e a s o n a b l y due i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Those cir- cumstances w i l l v a r y , b u t a c o n s t a n t f a c t o r is t h a t when a p l e a rests i n any s i g n i f i c a n t d e g r e e on a promise o r agreement of t h e p r o s e c u t o r , s o t h a t it can be s a i d to be p a r t of t h e inducement or c o n s i d e r a t i o n , such promise must be f u l f i l l e d . " S a n t o b e l l o v. New York, s u p r a . I n accord: Gardipee v. B l o d g e t t ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mon t . - P.2d P r o s e c u t e r s who engage i n p l e a b a r g a i n i n g must meet strict and m e t i c u l o u s s t a n d a r d s of b o t h promise and performance as a p l e a of g u i l t y r e s t i n g i n any s i g n i f i c a n t d e g r e e on an u n f u l f i l l e d p l e a b a r g a i n is i n v o l u n t a r y and s u b j e c t to v a c a t i o n . C o r r e a l e v. United S t a t e s (1st C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) , 479 F.2d 944. P r o s e c u t o r i a l v i o l a t i o n s , even i f made i n a d v e r t e n t l y or i n good f a i t h to o b t a i n a j u s t and m u t u a l l y d e s i r e d end, are unaccept- a b l e . Correale v. United S t a t e s , s u p r a ; S a n t o b e l l o v. New York, s u p r a . I n t h i s case b o t h p a r t i e s acknowledge t h e e x i s t e n c e of a p l e a b a r g a i n of some kind. The problem is t h a t t h e r e is an unre- s o l v e d f a c t u a l d i s p u t e concerning b o t h t h e terms of t h e p l e a b a r g a i n agreement and whether t h e p r o s e c u t o r v i o l a t e d t h e agreement. S p e c i f i c a l l y , were t h e terms of t h e agreement set f o r t h i n t h e ~ u l y 2 l e t t e r of d e f e n s e c o u n s e l to t h e p r o s e c u t o r complete and agreed to by t h e p r o s e c u t o r ? Was t h e agreement o r a l l y amended by some f u r t h e r agreement between t h e p r o s e c u t o r and d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a t o r n e a r t h e t i m e t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d ? What promise was made by t h e p r o s e c u t o r and what d i d t h e d e f e n d a n t understand t h e promise to be when he e n t e r e d a p l e a o f g u i l t y to t h e amended c h a r g e ? Did any u n f u l f i l l e d promise of t h e p r o s e c u t o r induce t h e d e f e n d a n t t o e n t e r a g u i l t y p l e a or o n l y af f e c t t h e s e n t e n c e imposed? Did t h e p r o s e c u t o r v i o l a t e t h e p l e a b a r g a i n by h i s conduct a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g ? These unresolved f a c t u a l i s s u e s rest upon t h e i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s and must be r e s o l v e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n an e v i - d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g f o r t h a t purpose. United S t a t e s v. A r n e t t ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) , 628 F.2d 1162. Accordingly, we remand to t h e District Court of Flathead County f o r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g i n conformity with t h i s o p i n i o n w i t h d i r e c t i o n s to e n t e r f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and o r d e r and c e r t i f y t h e same t o t h i s Court w i t h t r a n s c r i p t f o r review. W e r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s a p p e a l f o r t h a t p u r p o s e . Chief ~ u s t i c e We concur: