Title: STATE v MARTINEZ

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 84-350 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1985 THE STATE O F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- ANDREW MARTINEZ, J R . , 11, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. C O U N S E L O F RECORD: For Appellant: John I , . Adams, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted on Briefs: March 1 4 , 1985 Decided: June 6 , 1985 M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Following a jury v e r d i c t i n t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court, defendant was sentenced t o 15 y e a r s imprison- ment f o r t h e s a l e o f dangerous drugs and 6 months f o r c a r r y - i n g a concealed weapon. The sentences w e r e t o be served c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h t h e l a s t 5 y e a r s suspended. W e a f f i r m . Defendant r a i s e s two i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Was t h e evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e convic- t i o n f o r criminal s a l e o f dangerous drugs? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n by sentencing defendant t o a p r i s o n t e r m g r e a t e r than t h a t imposed upon an accomplice? I n January 1984, M r . Nelson, an undercover n a r c o t i c s a g e n t , purchased a pound of marijuana from John F l o r e s , a bartender. Nelson arranged t o buy an a d d i t i o n a l f o u r pounds o f marijuana from F l o r e s on February 8 , 1984. The testimony o f F l o r e s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t on February 6 , 1984, defendant and Louie Rivera drove F l o r e s t o a house a t 209 South 3 1 s t S t r e e t i n B i l l i n g s . A t t h a t r e s i d e n c e , Rivera i n s t r u c t e d F l o r e s a s t o how t h e exchange of marijuana-for- money would be made a t t h e back door. During t h e course o f t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n , F l o r e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e defendant s t a t - ed: "Hey, you guys, d o n ' t mess up." O n t h e morning o f February 8 , 1984, Agent Nelson a r r e s t - ed F l o r e s f o r c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous drugs and conspiracy t o sell dangerous drugs. Following h i s a r r e s t , F l o r e s agreed t o cooperate w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t i e s and t o complete t h e mari- juana s a l e scheduled f o r t h a t day. F l o r e s t o l d t h e p o l i c e t h a t he obtained h i s marijuana from Rivera and t h a t Rivera i n t u r n obtained h i s marijuana from defendant. A f t e r s e v e r a l telephone c a l l s , F l o r e s was a b l e t o con- t a c t Rivera and was i n s t r u c t e d t o proceed t o t h e r e s i d e n c e a t 209 South 3 1 s t S t r e e t . Agent Nelson and F l o r e s a r r i v e d a t t h a t address a t approximately 6:25 p.m. Defendant, Rivera and t h r e e o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e i n s i d e t h e residence. The testimony o f t h o s e i n s i d e t h e house i n d i c a t e d t h e following sequence o f e v e n t s : Rivera a r r i v e d f i r s t ; defendant a r r i v e d l a t e r , s h o r t l y a f t e r 6:00 p.m. Defendant had a conversation w i t h Rivera. A f t e r t h e conversation, defendant went t o t h e l i v i n g room and watched t e l e v i s i o n . Rivera went t o t h e back door where some conversation was heard. A t t h a t t i m e defen- d a n t was i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e k i t c h e n . Rivera r e t u r n e d from t h e back door, l o c a t e d i n t h e k i t c h e n , and t a l k e d t o defendant i n t h e l i v i n g room. About f i v e minutes l a t e r , defendant l e f t . Other testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e persons a t t h e back door w e r e Agent Nelson and F l o r e s . F l o r e s gave Rivera 50 marked $100 b i l l s , t o t a l i n g $5,000, and received f o u r pounds o f marijuana i n 8 zip-loc bags from Rivera. Defendant was apprehended by t h e p o l i c e a f t e r he l e f t t h e house. During t h e a r r e s t , a small automatic p i s t o l f e l l from h i s waistband. The p o l i c e found 4 7 o f t h e marked $100 b i l l s i n d e f e n d a n t ' s back pocket and a baggie o f marijuana. The p o l i c e a l s o a r r e s t e d Rivera when he l e f t t h e r e s i d e n c e . Three o f t h e marked $100 b i l l s w e r e found i n R i v e r a ' s pocket. The evidence showed t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n g e r p r i n t was on one o f t h e e i g h t zip-loc bags of marijuana s o l d t o Agent Nelson. I Was t h e evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e conviction f o r criminal. s a l e o f dangerous drugs? Defendant contends t h a t he d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s a l e o f marijuana because h i s involvement was subsequent t o t h e t i m e t h e marijuana-for-money exchange was completed. I n S t a t e v. Davis (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 620 P.2d 1209, 3.214-15, 37 St.Rep. 1958, 1964, t h i s Court adopted t h e following d e f i n i t i o n of c r i m i n a l s a l e : "To sell [drugs] means t o knowingly and i n t e n t i o n a l l y t r a n s f e r possession o r ownership o f t h e [drugs] t o a n o t h e r f o r money o r o t h e r va l u a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . For a person t o make such a s a l e it i s n o t necessary t h a t he p e r s o n a l l y handle a l l o f t h e d e t a i l s of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . I t i s s u f f i c i e n t i f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i s arranged by him and handled by persons under h i s d i r e c t i o n and it i s s u f f i c e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e a s a l e i f t h e person charged w i t h s a l e i s involved i n t h e t r a n s a c t i o n by a c c e p t i n g , handling, o r counting t h e money and d i r e c t i n g t h e d e l i v e r y o f t h e [drugs] . I n o t h e r words, t h e person charged with t h e s a l e does n o t have t o p e r s o n a l l y conduct a l l o f t h e v a r i o u s elements o f d e l i v e r y o f t h e [drugs] and t h e t r a n s f e r o f t h e money. It i s s u f f i c i e n t i f he p a r t i c i p a t e s t h e r e i n t o such an e x t e n t t h a t it i s obvious t h a t he i s a p a r t o f t h e making of t h e s a l e . " I n S t a t e v. Gladue (Mont. 1984), 679 P.2d 1256, 1258, 4 1 St.Rep. 669, 672, we set f o r t h t h e s t a n d a r d a p p l i e d by t h i s Court i n i t s review o f t h e evidence: "The test f o r t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e evidence t o support t h e judgment of c o n v i c t i o n i s whether t h e r e i s substan- t i a l evidence t o support t h e c o n v i c t i o n , viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e . S t a t e v. Lamb (Mont. 1982), 646 P.2d 516, 39 St.Rep. 1021. The r e s o l u - t i o n o f f a c t u a l m a t t e r s is f o r t h e jury, and i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e judgment, t h i s Court must a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e jury. S t a t e v. Hardy (1980), 1185 Mont. 1301 604 P.2d 792, 37 St.Rep. 1. Disputed q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s w i l l n o t be considered o n appeal. S t a t e v. DeGeorge (1977), 173 Mont. 35, 566 P.2d 59." In S t a t e v. Kutnyak (Mont. 1984), 685 P.2d 901, 910-11, 4 1 St.Rep. 1277, 1289, w e s t a t e d t h e following w i t h regard t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f s u b s t a n t i a l evidence: " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s defined a s such r e l e v a n t evidence a s a reasonable mind might a c c e p t a s adequate t o support a conclusion. " Defendant contends t h a t because o f c o n f l i c t i n g evidence, t h e trier o f f a c t could n o t have found t h e e s s e n t i a l elements o f t h e crime. Defendant contends t h a t t h e evidence e s t a b - l i s h e s t h a t : he was v i s i t i n g h i s f r i e n d s a t t h e r e s i d e n c e where t h e s a l e occurred, merely made small t a l k w i t h Rivera, was i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e k i t c h e n only because he was u s i n g t h e bathroom, had $4,700 i n marked money because Rivera asked him t o t r a n s p o r t t h e money t o t h e Brown Jug Tavern--which was only a l i t t l e over a block away--and t h a t h i s f i n g e r p r i n t was on t h e zip-loc bag because, while u s i n g t h e bathroom, he took a q u a n t i t y of marijuana from t h e bag f o r himself. The S t a t e ' s evidence showed t h a t t h e defendant was p r e s e n t w i t h Rivera and F l o r e s a t t h e t i m e t h e i n i t i a l p l a n s w e r e made f o r t h e s a l e o f t h e $5,000 worth o f marijuana and t h a t defendant t o l d Rivera and F l o r e s " d o n ' t m e s s up." Defendant was a l s o p r e s e n t a t t h e r e s i d e n c e where t h e mari- juana s a l e took p l a c e and t a l k e d t o Rivera b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e s a l e . Defendant had $4,700 o f marked $100 b i l l s i n h i s r e a r pocket and h i s f i n g e r p r i n t was found on 1 o f t h e 8 bags of marijuana s o l d t o Agent Nelson. W e conclude t h a t while t h e r e was some c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence, t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h a t c o n f l i c t was f o r t h e jury. W e hold t h a t , when viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e , t h e r e c l e a r l y was s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e conviction. I1 Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n by sentenc- i n g defendant t o a p r i s o n t e r m g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t imposed upon an accomplice? Defendant a r g u e s t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e o f 15 y e a r s w i t h 5 y e a r s suspended was u n f a i r because Rivera o n l y r e c e i v e d 10 y e a r s w i t h 7 y e a r s suspended. However, a s p o i n t e d o u t by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d e f e n d a n t was b o t h a s u p p l i e r and d r u g d e a l - er. T h i s a l o n g w i t h o t h e r f a c t o r s made it a p p r o p r i a t e t o s e n t e n c e him t o 15 y e a r s w i t h 5 suspended. There i s no b a s i s f o r comparison o f t h a t s e n t e n c e , imposed a f t e r t r i a l , t o t h e p l e a b a r g a i n s e n t e n c e o f Rivera. The s e n t e n c e imposed upon t h e d e f e n d a n t i s w e l l w i t h i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f § 45-9-101, MCA, which would a l l o w l i f e imprisonment. W e have p r e v i o u s l y r e f u s e d t o review a s e n t e n c e on a p p e a l on t h e i s s u e o f d i s p a r i t y o n l y . I n S t a t e v. Lloyd (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 676 P.2d 229, 231, 41 St.Rep. 263, 266, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "We w i l l n o t review a s e n t e n c e on appeal f o r mere i n e q u i t y o r d i s p a r i t y . Such a review i s t o b e conducted by t h e Sentence R e v i e w D i v i s i o n . S t a t e ex rel. G r e e l y v. D i s t r i c t Court (1979), 180 Mont. 317, 327, 590 P.2d 1104, 1110. R a t h e r , t h i s Court w i l l o n l y review s e n t e n c e s f o r t h e i r l e g a l i t y . The s t a n d a r d f o r such review i s whether the c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e s s . " T h i s Court h a s a l s o s t a t e d t h a t "a s e n t e n c e w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s provided by s t a t u t e is n o t a n abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . " S t a t e v. Lemmon (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 692 P.2d 455, 459, 41 St.Rep. W e h o l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s - c r e t i o n by s e n t e n c i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a p r i s o n t e r m g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t imposed upon h i s accomplice.