Title: STATE v SANDERS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13863 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- RICHARD SANDERS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Honorable C. B . Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Calton and Stephens, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Jack Yardley, County Attorney, Livingston, Montana Submitted: February 27, 1978 Decided : MAR 1 7 1978 - y - 2 Filed: MFg ' . M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. his is an appeal from an order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Park County, denying defendant's motion f o r post-conviction r e l i e f . This i s t h e t h i r d occasion t h a t t h i s c a s e has been before t h i s Court. I n March 1 9 7 0 , a p p e l l a n t was charged with t h r e e counts of felony a s s a u l t . Count I a l l e g e d he a s s a u l t e d t h r e e i t i n e r a n t magazine sales g i r l s . Count I1 a l l e g e d defendant pointed a loaded gun a t a t o u r i s t . Count I11 a l l e g e d defendant a s s a u l t e d a former employee. Count I was dismissed f o r lack of evidence. Defendant was convicted on Counts I1 and 111, b u t t h e convictions w e r e reversed on appeal a s extraneous evidence had been improperly allowed. S t a t e v. Sanders, (1971), 158 Mont. 113, 489 P.2d 371. Defendant was r e t r i e d and convicted of second degree a s s a u l t i n 1972. That conviction w a s appealed on lack of speedy t r i a l and w a s affirmed. S t a t e v. Sanders, (1973), 163 Mont. 209, 516 P.2d 372. Defendant's d e f e r r e d imposition of sentence w a s revoked and he w a s sentenced t o f o u r y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e prison. Sanders served h i s t e r m i n p r i s o n and he i s no longer incarcerated. I n December 1973, defendant f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court f o r post-conviction r e l i e f . The p e t i t i o n was r e f e r r e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court, S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of Park. I n A p r i l 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered an order denying a l l post-conviction remedies. Appellant appeals from t h a t order. I n March 1970, a p p e l l a n t w a s charged with t h r e e counts of felonious a s s a u l t . After h i s a r r e s t , a p p e l l a n t contacted Dan Yardley, an a t t o r n e y who had previously handled c i v i l m a t t e r s f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t , regarding r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on t h e criminal charges. A t t h e t i m e of t h i s c o n s u l t a t i o n , Jack Yardley, t h e brother and p a r t n e r of Dan Yardley, was t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y of Livingston, Montana. According t o t h e a f f i d a v i t by Jack Yardley, dated October 27, 1975, a s soon as Jack became aware t h a t a p p e l l a n t was making inquiry of h i s p a r t n e r , Dan Yardley, Jack entered t h e o f f i c e and advised Dan Yardley and a p p e l l a n t and h i s w i f e t h a t a p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t could a r i s e , because he was t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y , and members of t h e Livingston p o l i c e department were involved i n t h e case and thus perspective witnesses a g a i n s t Sanders. Because of t h i s p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t , Dan Yardley then declined t o accept t h e c a s e and no f e e was charged. Jack Yardley s t a t e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t : "That a t no t i m e d i d a f f i a n t l e a r n o r know of any of t h e circumstances o r defenses of RICHARD SANDERS a s t o t h e charges of second degree a s s a u l t i n March 1970." Appellant was convicted of t h e charges i n 1970, appealed, and t h e conviction was reversed by t h e Montana Supreme Court. S t a t e v. Sanders, (1971), 158 Mont. 113, 489 P.2d 371. I n January 1971, following Sanders' conviction a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l , Jack Yardley became t h e county a t t o r n e y f o r Park County, Montana. Subsequent t o t h e r e v e r s a l of h i s conviction, a p p e l l a n t was r e t r i e d i n 1972 and convicted of one count of felonious a s s a u l t . The prosecuting a t t o r n e y on t h e r e t r i a l was Jack Yardley. Appellant based h i s p e t i t i o n f o r post-conviction r e l i e f upon t h e f a c t t h a t t h e prosecutor a t a p p e l l a n t ' s 1972 t r i a l was t h e p a r t n e r of t h e a t t o r n e y whom he i n i t i a l l y consulted p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t t r i a l regarding r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I n an a f f i d a v i t i n support of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r post- conviction r e l i e f f i l e d by a p p e l l a n t and h i s wife i n Decem- b e r 1973, a p p e l l a n t r e c i t e s t h e above f a c t s and s t a t e s t h a t during t h e c o n s u l t a t i o n with Dan Yardley they discussed i n complete d e t a i l t h e events of t h e day of t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t and p o s s i b l e t h e o r i e s of defense, and t h a t no doubt Jack Yardley had occasion t o hear t h e e n t i r e conversation. iio o b j e c t i o n s were made a t t r i a l t o t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Jack Yardley t o prosecute t h e case on behalf of t h e state. This i s s u e was f i r s t r a i s e d i n a p p e l l a n t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r post-conviction r e l i e f f i l e d a f t e r h i s conviction was affirmed on appeal i n 1973, 19 months a f t e r r e t r i a l . The s o l e i s s u e on appeal i s whether o r n o t Sanders is e n t i t l e d t o post-conviction r e l i e f based upon t h e a l l e g e d p r i o r involvement of t h e prosecutor with preliminary defense matters? W e w i l l assume, f o r t h e purpose of discussion of t h i s i s s u e , t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s a l l e g a t i o n s a r e t r u e . To r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e , it i s necessary t o look a t t h e secondary issue--whether o r n o t a p p e l l a n t waived h i s p r i v i - l e g e t o a s s e r t t h e a l l e g e d p r o s e c u t o r i a l c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t ? Appellant f i r s t r a i s e d t h e question of t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n a p e t i t i o n f o r post-conviction r e l i e f f i l e d i n t h e United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court 19 months a f t e r t h a t conviction had been affirmed on appeal. N o o b j e c t i o n was made, although a p p e l l a n t had t o be aware of t h e a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t a t t h e time of t r i a l . There a r e no Montana c a s e s d i r e c t l y on t h i s i s s u e , b u t t h i s Court has recognized t h a t a defendant may waive a l e g a l r i g h t . I n S t a t e v. Gallagher, (1973), 162 Mont. 155, 509 P.2d 852, t h e defendant was given a choice between experi- enced c o u r t appointed counsel and counsel who had previously prosecuted defendant i n another t r i a l . Defendant chose as h i s defense counsel t h e a t t o r n e y who had previously prosecuted him. This Court held defendant, by h i s conduct, had waived any r i g h t t o demand a new t r i a l based on a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t of t h e attorney. A n a s s e r t i o n of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of a prosecuting a t t o r n e y because of h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e accused i s a p r i v i l e g e of t h e l a t t e r which may be waived i n various ways, p r i n c i p a l l y by f a i l u r e t o r a i s e t h e p o i n t a t t h e e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e time. D i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of Prosecuting Attorney on Account of Relationship with Accused, Anno. 31 ALR3d 953, 989. Gajewski v. United S t a t e s , ( 8 t h C i r . 1963), 321 F.2d 261, cert.den. 375 U.S. 968, 1 1 L ed 2d 416, 8 4 S . C t . 486. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o Yardley prosecuting him a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l , based on a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . Instead, he stood by and waited f o r t h e outcome. When t h e outcome was unfavorable t o him, he r a i s e d t h e c o n f l i c t i s s u e a s a post-conviction remedy, approximately 19 months a f t e r h i s conviction was affirmed. Appellant cannot s i t by and s p e c u l a t e on t h e outcome of h i s conviction and then r a i s e t h i s i s s u e a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t has been entered. Appellant waived h i s opportunity t o o b j e c t t o Yardley prosecuting him by f a i l i n g t o o b j e c t t o t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a t t r i a l . Therefore, a l l post-conviction r e l i e f i s denied. /" ,& J & /' J u s t i c e W e Concur: 3h&$ %& Chief J u s t i c e