Case Title: PARKER v CRIST

Citation: 

Docket Number: 14954

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-12-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 1 4 9 5 4 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 ALTON MAURICE PARKER, P e t i t i o n e r , ROGER W. CRIST-WARDEN MONTANA STATE P R I S O N , R e s p o n d e n t . ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For P e t i t i o n e r : John M c D o n a l d , M o n t a n a D e f e n d e r Project, Missoula, M o n t a n a Jchn E - R i d d i o u g h argued, I n t e r n , M o n t a n a D e f e n d e r Project, M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : H o n . M i k e G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a John M a y n a r d argued, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a R o b e r t L. D e s c h a m p s , 111, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d : A p r i l 1 4 , 1 9 8 0 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 . P e t i t i o n e r A l t o n Maurice P a r k e r h a s f i l e d i n t h i s Court a p r o se p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . H e a l l e g e s s e v e r a l errors r e l a t i n g to h i s t r i a l , c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e to l i f e imprisonment on seven c o u n t s of armed robbery and one count of a s s a u l t i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Missoula County i n 1971. The c h a r g e s a g a i n s t p e t i t i o n e r arose o u t of an armed rob- b e r y of seven p e r s o n s and a p i s t o l whipping of one i n a b a r i n Milltown, Montana, on December 26, 1970. P e t i t i o n e r was charged by i n f o r m a t i o n with one count of armed robbery on J u l y 1 2 , 1971. Court-appointed c o u n s e l was a s s i g n e d to r e p r e s e n t p e t i t i o n e r , b u t b e f o r e p e t i t i o n e r e n t e r e d a p l e a to t h a t charge an amended i n f o r - mation was f i l e d c h a r g i n g p e t i t i o n e r w i t h seven c o u n t s of armed r o b b e r y and one count of a s s a u l t . Following p e t i t i o n e r ' s p l e a of n o t g u i l t y to each of t h e c h a r g e s , a j u r y t r i a l was h e l d r e s u l t i n g i n p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n of a l l c h a r g e s . P e t i t i o n e r w a s s e n t e n c e d to l i f e imprisonment. W e a f f irmed p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n . S t a t e v. P a r k e r ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 394, 506 P.2d 850. T h e r e a f t e r p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a motion f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n of r e c o r d s i n t h e District Court which was denied. P e t i t i o n e r t h e n s o u g h t t h e same r e l i e f i n t h i s C o u r t . W e denied t h e r e l i e f sought. P e t i t i o n of P a r k e r ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont. 330, 511 P.2d 973. P e t i t i o n e r n e x t s o u g h t r e l i e f b e f o r e t h e S e n t e n c e Review D i v i s i o n of t h i s Court. The S e n t e n c e Review D i v i s i o n denied r e l i e f , l e a v i n g h i s s e n t e n c e as o r i g i n a l l y imposed. P e t i t i o n e r t h e n f i l e d t h e p r e s e n t p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . W e o r d e r e d t h e A t t o r n e y General and t h e Missoula County A t t o r n e y to f i l e a w r i t t e n response to t h e p e t i t i o n . Following r e c e i p t of t h e response we appointed John McDonald of t h e Montana Defender P r o j e c t to r e p r e s e n t p e t i t i o n e r . Following t h e f i l i n g of b r i e f s , oral argument w a s heard and t h e matter w a s t a k e n under advisement. P e t i t i o n e r f i r s t c o n t e n d s t h a t c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n N o . 8 w a s r e v e r s i b l e error e n t i t l i n g him to a new t r i a l . I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 8 r e a d : " I n e v e r y crime or p u b l i c o f f e n s e t h e r e must e x i s t a union or j o i n t o p e r a t i o n of act and i n t e n t , o r c r i m i n a l n e g l i g e n c e . The i n t e n t or i n t e n t i o n is m a n i f e s t e d by t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s connected w i t h t h e o f f e n s e and t h e sound mind and d i s c r e t i o n of t h e accused. " I n o r d e r to c o n s t i t u t e t h e o f f e n s e charged i n t h i s case, t h e i n t e n t a l l e g e d i n t h e I n f o r m a t i o n is n e c e s s a r y to be proved, b u t d i r e c t and posi- t i v e t e s t i m o n y is n o t n e c e s s a r y to prove t h e i n t e n t . It may be i n f e r r e d from t h e evidence i f t h e r e are any f a c t s proved which s a t i s f y t h e j u r y , beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt, of its e x i s t e n c e . "The l a w also presumes t h a t a p e r s o n i n t e n d s t h e o r d i n a r y consequences of any v o l u n t a r y act com- m i t t e d by him. The l a t t e r presumption, however, is termed a d i s p u t a b l e presumption and may be c o n t r o v e r t e d by o t h e r evidence." The p e n u l t i m a t e s e n t e n c e i n t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n is substan- t i a l l y t h e same as t h e i n s t r u c t i o n condemned by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n Sandstrom v. Montana ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 39. Although no o b j e c t i o n to t h i s i n s t r u c - t i o n was made a t t h e t r i a l , w e now review t h i s i s s u e under t h e " p l a i n errorn r u l e . S e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA. See H a l l d o r s o n v. H a l l d o r s o n ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 5 Mont. 170, 573 P.2d 169. P e t i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n e i t h e r s h i f t s t h e burden of proof on t h e i s s u e of i n t e n t from t h e S t a t e to t h e d e f e n d a n t or c o n s t i t u t e s a c o n c l u s i v e presumption a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t , e i t h e r of which is c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y impermissible u n d e r Sandstrom. I n re Winship ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368; Mullaney v. Wilbur ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508; Morissette v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed 288. P e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n f a i l s f o r t h r e e r e a s o n s . The i n s t r u c t i o n i t s e l f is c l e a r l y a p e r m i s s i v e i n f e r e n c e and n o t a c o n c l u s i v e presumption. See County Court of U l s t e r County v. A l l e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 442 U.S. 140, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777; S t a t e v. Coleman ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mon t . , 605 P.2d 1000, 36 St.Rep. 2237. The q u e s t i o n e d i n s t r u c t i o n is n o t a "naked" presumption as i n Sandstrom; t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s as a whole make it a b u n d a n t l y clear t h a t t h e S t a t e b e a r s t h e burden of proving beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t e v e r y e s s e n t i a l element of t h e crimes of which t h e defen- d a n t was charged. F i n a l l y , w e d e c l a r e t h a t t h e error, i f any, was harmless beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. Chapman v. C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 386 U.S. 1 8 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 1 7 L.Ed.2d 705, r e h e a r i n g d e n i e d 386 U.S. 987, 87 S.Ct. 1283, 1 8 L.Ed.2d 241; S t a t e v. Blackney ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 605 P.2d 1093, 1099, 36 St.Rep. 2193, 2200-01; S t a t e v. Hamilton ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 605 P.2d 1121, 1131, 37 St.Rep. 70, 81-82. The e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e armed r o b b e r i e s and a s s a u l t had o c c u r r e d and t h e p e r p e t r a t o r s p o s s e s s e d t h e r e q u i s i t e i n t e n t was overwhelming, t h e o n l y i s s u e being t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e d e f e n d a n t . S t a t e v. McKenzie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 608 P.2d 428, 459, 37 St.Rep. 325, 358-9; S t a t e v. Hamilton, s u p r a , Mont. a t , 605 P.2d a t 1132-33, 37 St.Rep. a t 82-83. P e t i t i o n e r must show t h e i n v a l i d i t y of t h e presumption as t o him or t h e r e is no p r e j u d i c e and no r e v e r s i b l e error. S t a t e v . Sunday ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 609 P.2d 1188, 1196, 37 St.Rep. 561, 569. Next, p e t i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n was i m p r o p e r l y f i l e d because no s u p p o r t i n g af f i d a v i t was f i l e d e s t a b l i s h i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e . The f a c t s r e l a t i n g to t h e f i l i n g of t h e amended i n f o r - mation are c l e a r and u n c o n t r a d i c t e d . The o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n charged p e t i t i o n e r w i t h one count of armed robbery naming as vic- t i m s a l l seven p e r s o n s later named i n t h e seven c o u n t s of t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . Before p e t i t i o n e r e n t e r e d a p l e a to t h e o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e county a t t o r n e y f i l e d an amended i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h l e a v e of c o u r t b u t w i t h o u t an a f f i d a v i t e s t a b l i s h i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e . The amended i n f o r m a t i o n charged p e t i t i o n e r w i t h seven c o u n t s of armed robbery and one c o u n t of a s s a u l t . N o o b j e c t i o n was made by p e t i t i o n e 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 . P e t i t i o n e r simply plead n o t g u i l t y to e a c h of t h e c h a r g e s and went to t r i a l . N o r d i d p e t i t i o n e r i n h i s a p p e a l raise t h e i s s u e he now s e e k s to raise i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g . S t a t e v. P a r k e r , s u p r a . The s t a t u t e i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e of p e t i t i o n e r ' s t r i a l p r o v i d e d t h a t d e f e c t s i n i n s t i t u t i n g t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of t h e case or i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n must be r a i s e d b e f o r e t r i a l and t h a t f a i l u r e to do so c o n s t i t u t e s a waiver of any d e f e c t s . Former s e c t i o n 95-1702, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-13-102, MCA. Thus t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t s i n f i l i n g t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n were waived by p e t i t i o n e r ' s f a i l u r e to o b j e c t p r i o r to t r i a l . More i m p o r t a n t l y , 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 w i t h o u t an accompanying a f f i d a v i t e s t a b l i s h i n g p r o b a b l e cause f o r t h e seven r o b b e r y c o u n t s was n o t e r r o r i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h i s case. The purpose of r e q u i r i n g an a f f i d a v i t or o t h e r showing of p r o b a b l e c a u s e b e f o r e a p r o s e c u t i o n is i n s t i t u t e d is t o p r e v e n t unwarranted p r o s e c u t i o n s of i n n o c e n t i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h o u t p r o o f . Here t h e a f f i d a v i t f i l e d w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d p r o b a b l e cause as t o each v i c t i m named i n each of t h e s e v e n c o u n t s of robbery i n t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . The f i l i n g o f a second a f f i d a v i t c o n t a i n i n g t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e same showing of p r o b a b l e cause would s e r v e no purpose, would not c o n t r a v e n e t h e p o l i c y behind t h e r e q u i r e m e n t , and would be s u p e r f l u o u s . The l a w d o e s n o t r e q u i r e i d l e acts. S e c t i o n 1-3-223 , MCA. P e t i t i o n e r s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e a s o n f o r f i l i n g t h e m u l t i p l e c h a r g e s of r o b b e r y w a s r e t a l i a t i o n by t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y a g a i n s t p e t i t i o n e r because p l e a b a r g a i n i n g n e g o t i a t i o n s had broken down and p e t i t i o n e r had e l e c t e d t o s t a n d t r i a l r a t h e r t h a n p l e a d g u i l t y . The s i m p l e answer t o t h i s is t h a t t h i s is an unfounded a c c u s a t i o n n o t supported by t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s case. S t a t e v. S a t h e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 428, 564 P.2d 1306, c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h i s case by r e a s o n of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e . However, t h e c h a r g e of a s s a u l t is unsupported by any showing of p r o b a b l e cause. Nothing c o n t a i n e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l a f f i d a v i t relates to any a s s a u l t . T h i s is " p l a i n error" of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l magnitude t h a t r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l of p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n of a s s a u l t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s of former s e c t i o n 95-1702, R.C.M. 1947, p r e v i o u s l y c i t e d . Due p r o c e s s of l a w r e q u i r e s no less. P e t i t i o n e r also o b j e c t s to being charged w i t h m u l t i p l e c o u n t s of robbery a r i s i n g o u t of t h e same i n c i d e n t . The S t a t e is p e r m i t t e d to do so by t h e e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n s of s t a t u t e . Former s e c t i o n s 95-1504 and 95-1711(2), R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 46-11-404(1) and 46-11-502, MCA, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Although t h e p r o p r i e t y of f i l i n g such m u l t i p l e c h a r g e s has been c r i t i c i z e d i n some cases ( B a r n h a r t v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 4 ) , Okla . C r i m . , 518 P.2d 1123; People v. B a i l e y ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 38 Cal.App.3d 693, 1 1 3 Cal.Rptr. 514; S t a t e ex rel. McKenzie v. D i s t . C t . ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 54, 525 P.2d 1 2 1 1 ) , it is w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n to do so under Montana l a w and a c c o r d i n g l y t h e r e is no e r r o r . F i n a l l y , p e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t he is e n t i t l e d to post- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f because he w a s pushed i n t o t h e courtroom w h i l e handcuffed and surrounded by l a w enforcement o f f i c e r s . P e t i - t i o n e r h a s produced no e v i d e n c e t h a t he was s e e n i n h a n d c u f f s by any j u r o r . Accordingly, h i s a c c u s a t i o n f a i l s f o r want of s u p p o r t . P e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n of a s s a u l t is r e v e r s e d . A s we have no way of d e t e r m i n i n g to what e x t e n t t h i s c o n v i c t i o n a f f e c t e d t h e s e n t e n c e of l i f e imprisonment f o r a l l crimes of which p e t i t i o n e r was c o n v i c t e d by j u r y v e r d i c t , t h e cause is remanded to t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Missoula County w i t h d i r e c t i o n s to r e s e n t e n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e seven c o u n t s of armed r o b b e r y of which he was d u l y and r e g u l a r l y c o n v i c t e d . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: Hon. H. W i l l i a m Coder, ~ i s t r i c t l Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly M r . J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. Shea, deeming himself d i s q u a l i f i e d , d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s c a s e .