Title: STATE EX REL LINTZ v DISTRICT COU

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12304 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A ex rel. CHING WENKE LINTZ, P e t i t i o n e r , DISTRICT C O U R T O F THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N P s , Respondent. @r3-g Pnal Proceedings. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : David Astle argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana 59901. Patrick Springer argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana 59901. For Respondent : H. James Oleson, argued, County Attorney, K a l i s p e l l , Montana 59901. Robert t. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montzna 5960l. Submitted: June 21, 1972 Decided : $UN 2 9 4972 Filed : Per Curiam: This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding brought by r e l a t o r a s a p e t i t i o n f o r a post-conviction hearing, Upon hearing the p e t i t i o n ex parte, t h i s Court granted an order t o show cause directed t o the d i s t r i c t court of the eleventh j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , the Hon. Robert S. Iceller, presiding. Return was made, including a trans- c r i p t of hearing before the d i s t r i c t court. A motion t o quash was made and o r a l argument had. Briefly, p e t i t i o n e r , 21 years of age, was arrested f o r the criminal s a l e of dangerous drugs, a felony. Upon arraign- ment he plead not g u i l t y , subsequently changed t o a g u i l t y plea. A hearing was held on "mitigation o r aggravation of sentence'' on May 17, 1972. Defendant was granted a deferred imposition of sentence f o r a period of three years i n an order s e t t i n g f o r t h what we w i l l term "usual conditions''. Defendant had o r a l l y agreed t o cooperate with the court and law enforcement o f f i c i a l s . I n h i s a r r e s t and the subsequent investigation, defendant had voluntarily led o f f i c e r s t o other drugs, marihuana, cocaine and P.C.P. IIe had sold twelve l i d s of marihuana. H e claimed the cache of other drugs belonged t o one Bristow. A t the presentence hearing, under oath, defendant t o l d one story, the d e t a i l s of which a r e not of great importance here, but which were believed by the t r i a l court. A t the subsequent t r i a l of the heretofore mentioned Bristow, defendant t o l d a d i f f e r e n t story which convinced the court t h a t he had previously perjured himself. He then refused t o answer f o r f e a r of further incriminating himself---something t h a t he did not r a i s e a t the presentence hearing. The t r i a l judge i n h i s return characterizes defendant's testimony a t the Bristow t r i a l a s a "farce, a sham"; and, t h a t h i s lack of memory was a "palpable l i e " and he made a I I mockery" of the court. A reading of the transcript by t h i s Court reveals the characLerizations of the t r i a l court t o be apt. The defendant had c l e a r l y deceived and misrepresented matters t o obtain a deferred imposition of sentence. A p e t i t i o n f o r revocation of chat deferred imposition of sentence was made, a hearing was held, and the statutory presumption of a deferred imposition of sen- cence was c l e a r l y rebutted. The t r i a l court sentenced defendant t o f i f t e e n years. W e a r e informed t h a t an appeal i s being taken so t h a t e r r o r s , i f any, may be reviewed i n the normal appeal process. After reviewing the record, we do not find any abuse of discre- t i o n s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h i s Court t o take o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t h i s time. Accordingly, the order t o show cause previously granted i s quashed. Relator i n h i s p e t i t i o n a l s o seeks r e l i e f by way of s t a y of execution of the sentence, pending appeal. W e deny t h a t r e l i e f a t t h i s time without prejudice.