Case Title: STATE v GRAY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-05-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 82- 288 I N TIIE SUPXE!'4E CC)U!?T OF THE STATF OF ?IOI.JTP.?JA 1 9 8 3 STATE OF MONTAXA, Plaintiff and Respondent, KA2EN I. GIWY, Defendant and Appellant, Appeal from: The D l s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d l c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of P o v ~ e l l The Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: I(arei1 I. Gray, pro set D e e r Lodge, l'lontana For Kespondent : Hon. Mike Greely , Attorney q e n e r a l , Ifelen?, Montana T e d Mizner, County Attornev, D e e r Lodge, Montana ----- Submitted on B r i e f s : A p r i l 2 1 , 198-3 Decided: Play 1 9 , 1983 F i l e d : MAY 1 9 1 9 8 3 %. -.. . -- . - . . - - . Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d the Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant a p p e a l s pro se from the s e n t e n c e she received af t e r s h e pled g u i l t y t o two c o u n t s of f e l o n y t h e f t . On September 1 0 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t was charged with two counts of f e l o n y t h e f t i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Powell County. Court I charged d e f e n d a n t had made f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s t o Powell County w e l f a r e employees t o r e c e i v e food stamps i n t h e amount of $1,913. Count I1 charged d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o r e p o r t income a c c u r a t e l y and f r a u d u l e n t l y r e c e i v e d $ 3 , 0 6 7 . 6 0 i n AFDC payments. Defendant pled not g u i l t y t o both c o u n t s . T h e r e a f t e r , i n c o n j u n c t i o n with a p l e a b a r g a i n , d e f e n d a n t withdrew her p l e a s of not g u i l t y and pled g u i l t y t o both c o u n t s on May 2 0 , 1982. The s u b s t a n c e of t h e p l e a b a r g a i n was t h e S t a t e agreed t o recommend a s e n t e n c e of t h r e e y e a r s suspended i f defen- d a n t pled g u i l t y t o both counts. The D i s t r i c t Court ordered a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and set s e n t e n c i n g f o r J u l y 8 , 1982. On t h a t day defendant appeared a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , t h e S t a t e recommended a three-year suspended s e n t e n c e , and t h e D i s t r i c t Court ordered defendant s e r v e t h r e e y e a r s i n p r i s o n w i t h a l l but t h i r t y days suspended. The Court f u r t h e r ordered defen- d a n t make r e s t i t u t i o n t o t h e S t a t e of Montana and s e r v e t h e t h i r t y days i n t h e county j a i l a t t h e r a t e of two days per week. Defendant a p p e a l s o n l y the t h i r ty-day s e n t e n c e . The s u b s t a n c e of t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on appeal is: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n not imposing s e n t e n c e a s t h e S t a t e recommended. 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court was p r e j u d i c e d by t h e presen- t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t . Defendant f i r s t contends t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by not imposing a three-year suspended s e n t e n c e a s t h e S t a t e recom- mended. T h i s Court h a s upheld t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n s e n t e n c i n g a d e f e n d a n t who has pled g u i l t y a s p a r t of a p l e a b a r g a i n i n S t a t e v. Mann ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 306, 546 P.2d 515. Here, d e f e n d a n t was informed by t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e recommendation of t h e S t a t e was not binding upon t h e Court. Defendant s t a t e d she understood. T h e r e f o r e , she must a c c e p t t h e s e n t e n c e pronounced by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Next, d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h e D i s t r i c t Court was p r e j u d i c e d by t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t . Most of d e f e n d a n t ' s objec- t i o n s stem from m a t e r i a l contained i n paragraph 9 o f t h e r e p o r t . The D i s t r i c t Court ordered paragraph 9 s t r i c k e n from t h e r e p o r t a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g hearing. I n S t a t e v. Orsborn ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 480, 486, 555 P.2d 509, t h i s Court s t a t e d , "A c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t s t i l l h a s a due p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e a g a i n s t a s e n t e n c e p r e d i c a t e d on misinformation." For defendant t o h e r e c l a i m she d i d not r e c e i v e due p r o c e s s , she must show t h e D i s t r i c t Court pronounced s e n t e n c e based upon misinformation contained i n t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t . T h i s defendant has f a i l e d t o show. Sec- t i o n 46-18-112, MCA, governs the c o n t e n t s of the p r e s e n t e n c e in- v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t and we f i n d w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of paragraph 9, which was s t r i c k e n , t h e r e p o r t complied w i t h t h i s s e c t i o n . Judgment is af f irmed . u s t i c e * = = &&J We concur: I I Ckief J u s t i c e