Case Title: SCHANTLE v CRIST

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-05-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF T H E STATE O F MONTANA No. 14789 W A L T E R SCHANTLE, P e t i t i o n e r , R O G E R CRIST, Warden, Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER PER CURIAM: O r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n by Walter S c h a n t l e f o r a w r i t o f habeas corpus d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e warden of t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , Roger C r i s t . S c h a n t l e had p r e v i o u s l y sought a w r i t o f habeas corpus from t h e United S t a t e s 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, B i l l i n g s D i v i s i o n , b u t w r i t w a s denied by t h a t Court on t h e grounds t h a t S c h a n t l e had n o t exhausted h i s a v a i l a b l e state remedies, 0 ; November 22, 1976, i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of S t i l l w a t e r County, S c h a n t l e e n t e r e d a p l e a of g u i l t y t o a charge of b u r g l a r y involving a grocery s t o r e i n Absarokee, Montana. The c r i m e was a l l e g e d t o have occurred on J u l y 22, 1976. H e w a s sentenced t o t e n y e a r s a t hard l a b o r i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n of t h e S t a t e of Montana upon judgment and c o n v i c t i o n following h i s p l e a of g u i l t y . S c h a n t l e s e e k s a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n w a s ' i l l e g a l upon t h e s e grounds: (1) t h a t he w a s r e f u s e d t h e \ r i g h t t o proceed a s h i s own a t t o r n e y i n t h e S t i l l w a t e r County ~ i s t r i c t Court; ( 2 ) t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o i n t e r r o g a t e him a s t o t h e elements c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e c r i m e with which he was charged; ( 3 ) t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s court- appointed a t t o r n e y s f a i l e d t o a s s i s t p e t i t i o n e r with t h e f i l i n g of p r e t r i a l motions o r t o provide e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e i n connection with h i s defense t o t h e charges; ( 4 ) t h e p r e t r i a l motions f i l e d by p e t i t i o n e r were n o t heard by t h e D i s t r i c t Court; (5) t h a t new counsel w a s appointed f o r p e t i t i o n e r o u t s i d e of h i s presence i n c o u r t ; and (6) t h a t he w a s coerced i n t o pleading g u i l t y by t h e t h r e a t of t h e f i l i n g of p r i o r convictions. P e t i t i o n e r has been supplied with a t r a n s c r i p t of t h e proceedings t h a t occurred when he entered h i s p l e a of g u i l t y . Upon r e c e i p t of h i s p e t i t i o n , t h e matter w a s r e f e r r e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court of S t i l l w a t e r County f o r a f a c t u a l determina- t i o n . A hearing on h i s p e t i t i o n was conducted by Judge Jack D. Shanstrom, who w a s c a l l e d i n t o t h e Thirteenth D i s t r i c t i n connection with t h i s m a t t e r on February 28, 1980. A t r a n - s c r i p t of t h e proceedings before Judge Shanstrom are a l s o p a r t of our record here. Schantle w a s arraigned with a codefendant before t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n S t i l l w a t e r County on August 3 , 1976. H e stood mute a s t o t h e t h r e e counts charged a g a i n s t him, and t h e c o u r t entered h i s p l e a of n o t g u i l t y t o each of t h e charges. The c o u r t f u r t h e r appointed Richard W. Heard, an a t t o r n e y of Columbus, Montana, t o r e p r e s e n t Schantle and t h e codefendant. W e f i n d t h a t on August 26, 1976, Schantle, with h i s codefendant, wrote a letter t o t h e d i s t r i c t judge advising t h a t they dismissed a t t o r n e y Heard and would t h e r e a f t e r act i n t h e i r own defense. On August 26, 1976, Schantle a l s o f i l e d a letter e n t i t l e d , A Motion f o r Probable Cause Hearing, asking t h e c o u r t t o set a d a t e f o r t h e same. O n September 22, 1976, Schantle and h i s codefendant f i l e d i n D i s t r i c t Court a motion f o r a production and suppression of evidence hearing. On October 23, 1976, Schantle and h i s codefendant f i l e d i n c o u r t a motion f o r a j u s t cause hearing and a motion t h a t t h e c o u r t show cause within t h r e e days why t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t g r a n t t h e i r motion f o r a production and suppression of evidence hearing previously f i l e d . On November 3 , 1976, t h e codefendants had a l s o f i l e d a motion f o r discovery r e q u i r i n g t h e county a t t o r n e y t o produce a l l evidence which would be used a t t h e t r i a l of t h e defendants. Attorney Heard t e s t i f i e d before Judge Shanstrom i n t h e hearing on t h e habeas corpus proceedings. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t on October 27, 1976, he v i s i t e d i n t h e j a i l i n Yellowstone County Courthouse with Schantle and t h e codefendant, and t h a t they indicated a n unwillingness f o r Heard t o r e p r e s e n t them a t t r i a l . Heard then went t o t h e p r e s i d i n g d i s t r i c t judge who advised t h a t he would appoint John Adams, an a t t o r n e y i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, t o r e p r e s e n t both defendants. Attorney Heard had only one conference with t h e defendants, t h a t on October 27. The defendants had been removed from Columbus, Montana, t h e county seat of S t i l l w a t e r County, t o t h e j a i l i n Yellowstone County i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, some f o r t y m i l e s away. A f t e r Heard received a copy of t h e letter dismissing him as a t t o r n e y , he undertook no f u r t h e r a c t i o n s on behalf of t h e defendant Schantle. John Adams t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r he w a s appointed by Judge Luedke, he v i s i t e d with t h e defendants i n t h e f i r s t p a r t of November, 1976. H e s t a t e s t h a t he d i d n o t d i s c u s s any defenses with Schantle, p a r t i c u l a r l y because he d i d n o t f i n d from a review of t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s f i l e and t h e evidence t h e r e i n t h a t t h e r e w e r e any l e g a l defenses t o t h e charges. H i s discussion with Schantle w a s on t h e p o i n t of what could be done with t h e county a t t o r n e y of S t i l l w a t e r County t o e f f e c t t h e least p o s s i b l e sentence f o r Schantle on t h e crimes charged. H e w a s informed by Schantle t h a t t h e county a t t o r n e y w a s threatening to f i l e n o t i c e of p r i o r convictions a g a i n s t Schantle f o r t h e purpose of increased punishment i f he d i d n o t plead g u i l t y t o t h e charges. T r i a l of t h e charges i n S t i l l w a t e r County a g a i n s t t h e defendant had been set f o r November 29, 1976. O n November 16, 1976, t h e county a t t o r n e y d i d i n f a c t f i l e a n o t i c e of p r i o r convictions f o r t h e purpose of seeking increased punishment a g a i n s t Schantle. On November 22, 1976, before t h e p r e s i d i n g judge, b u t i n t h e courtroom i n Yellowstone County, pursuant t o agree- ment, t h e defendant, and h i s a t t o r n e y M r . Adams, and t h e county a t t o r n e y of S t i l l w a t e r County appeared. A s t h e proceedings opened, M r . Adams, i n t h e presence of Schantle, informed t h e c o u r t t h a t Schantle had advised t h a t with r e s p e c t t o t h e count of simple burglary, he would l i k e t o withdraw h i s p l e a of n o t g u i l t y and e n t e r a new p l e a t o t h a t charge. The c o u r t granted t h a t request. The proceedings t h a t followed are here set f o r t h verbatim: "THE COURT: . . . M r . Schantle, under Count No. I you a r e charged with t h e c r i m e of burglary, which w a s a l l e g e d t o have occurred on o r about J u l y 23rd, 1976. What i s your p l e a t o t h i s count? "THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I ' d l i k e t o know what I ' m pleading t o . "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t , Count No. I says t h a t you knowingly entered o r remained unlawfully i n an occupied s t r u c t u r e with t h e purpose t o commit an o f f e n s e t h e r e i n , to-wit: defendant entered t h e business premises of M i l l i g a n ' s IGA s t o r e with t h e purpose t o commit t h e f t . Now, t h a t ' s Count No. I. That's what you're pleading to. "MR. A D A M S : Further I should i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e punishment, t h i s c r i m e c a r r i e s a maximum punish- ment of t e n years. I believe t h a t i s what you're i n t e r e s t e d i n . "THE DEFENDANT: Y e s . "Your Honor, I ' l l e n t e r a p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h a t charge i f t h a t is a l l t h a t i s going t o be f i l e d a g a i n s t m e i n D i s t r i c t Court as t o t h i s crime o r any crimes a r i s i n g o u t of it o r a s t o any f u r t h e r a c t i o n t h a t might be f i l e d a g a i n s t m e stemming from m y p a s t o r from t h e present. "THE COURT: W i l l , I guess, M r . Laws, t h a t c a l l s f o r -- "MR. L A W S : Your Honor, S t i l l w a t e r County is w i l l i n g t o dismiss Counts I1 and I11 a g a i n s t M r . Schantle and w i l l n o t n o t i c e any p r i o r s on t h e matter. "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t , does t h a t answer your question? "THE DEFENDANT: Y e s , sir. And I ' l l plead g u i l t y . "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . Now, t h e penalty i s a maximum of 10 years, M r . Schantle, and i n view of your p a s t record you should a n t i c i p a t e t h a t ' s probably t h e sentence you're going t o g e t . I want you t o understand t h a t r i g h t from t h e be- ginning. "Has anybody promised you anything j u s t t o g e t you t o come i n here and plead g u i l t y t o t h i s count? "THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. "THE COURT: Has anybody threatened you t o f o r c e you t o come i n t h i s morning and plead? "THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. "THE COURT: W e l l , t h e y ' r e saying t h a t you went unlawfully t o t h i s IGA s t o r e f o r t h e purpose of s t e a l i n g . Is t h a t what you did? "THE DEFENDANT: Y e s , sir. Your Honor, could I ask f o r a pre-sentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n before sen- tence i s pronounced? "THE COURT: D o you have any information concern- i n g t h e p a s t record of M r . Schantle? "MR. L A W S : Your Honor, I have an FBI r a p s h e e t on M r . Schantle, b u t o t h e r than t h a t , t h e f a c t t h a t he has a common-law wife and t h r e e c h i l d r e n , I know nothing more about h i s background. "THE COURT: M r . Schantle, I j u s t want t o make it clear t h a t you understand normally you would be e n t i t l e d t o have a jury t r i a l on t h i s charge-- and one i s scheduled f o r t h e 29th of t h i s month-- and during t h a t t r i a l you have t h e r i g h t t o re- main s i l e n t without your s i l e n c e being held o r used a g a i n s t you; and a l s o you have t h e r i g h t t o have a l l t h e witnesses a g a i n s t you appear i n open c o u r t s o t h a t you can see them, you can hear them, and you can have them cross-examined. Now, i f I a c c e p t t h i s p l e a of g u i l t y t o Count No. I, t h e r e won't be any t r i a l , t h e r e won't be any witnesses. And you have already t o l d m e what you have done. NOW, i s t h a t what you want? "THE DEFENDANT: Y e s , sir. "THE COURT: W e l l , t h e record may show t h a t t h e Court a c c e p t s t h e p l e a of g u i l t y t o Count No. I as being voluntary and with knowledge of t h e con- sequences." With r e s p e c t t o t h e presentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n , Schantle w a s advised by t h e c o u r t t h a t i n view of h i s p r i o r record t h a t he would i n any event w a s going t o r e c e i v e a t e n year sentence and t h a t t h e presentence r e p o r t would have l i t t l e e f f e c t . Upon i n t e r r o g a t i o n by M r . Adams i f he wanted t o be sentenced, t h e defendant r e p l i e d "Yeah." Thereupon t h e c o u r t pronounced sentence. O n t h e foregoing, t h i s Court f i n d s and concludes t h a t defendant entered h i s p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h e c r i m e of burglary v o l u n t a r i l y and with f u l l knowledge of t h e consequences; t h a t he d i d s o a f t e r admitting t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t he d i d i n f a c t commit t h e a c t f o r which he w a s charged. I t f u r t h e r appears t h a t S c h a n t l e ' s e n t r y of p l e a was t h e r e s u l t of a p l e a bargain under which he received t h e maximum sentence p o s s i b l e f o r simple burglary, t e n years, without increased punishment by reason of p r i o r convictions. Two o t h e r criminal counts a g a i n s t him w e r e dismissed. The s t a n d a r d under which t h e v a l i d i t y of a g u i l t y p l e a i s judged i s whether t h e p l e a r e p r e s e n t s a v o l u n t a r y and i n t e l l i g e n t c h o i c e among t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n open t o t h e defendant as a f f i r m a t i v e l y d i s c l o s e d by t h e record. North C a r o l i n a v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162, 168; Brady v. United S t a t e s (1970), 397 U.S. 742, 747, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1468, 25 L.Ed. 2d 747, 755; Wilkins v. Erickson ( 9 t h C i r . 1974) , 505 F.2d 761, 763; S t a t e v. G r i f f i n (1975), 167 Mont. 11, 21, 535 P.2d 498, 503. W e f i n d no m e r i t i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r habeas corpus h e r e . DISMISSED. DATED t h i s day of May, 1980. Chief J u s t i c e