Title: GONZALES v BLODGETT

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 8 1 - 1 4 4 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 1 LARRY LAWRENCE GONZALES, J R . , P e t i t i o n e r , -vs- JAMES BLODGETT, acting W a r d e 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 ; L a r r y L a w r e n c e G o n z a l e s , Jr., Pro Se, D e e r L o d g e , 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 Greely, 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 H a r o l d H a n s e r r C o u n t y A t t o r n e y ! B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d t June 1, 1 9 8 1 D e c i d e d : JuL 2 2 198% F i l e d ; 3Uh 2 2 198d C l e r k Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P e t i t i o n e r L a r r y Lawrence Gonzales, J r . , h a s f i l e d a pro se p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of habeas corpus a l l e g i n g (1) t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o revoke h i s d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e a f t e r it had e x p i r e d or was completed and ( 2 ) t h a t he was denied e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l by reason of t h e f a i l u r e of h i s court-appointed counsel t o r a i s e t h i s a s a d e f e n s e . On O c t o b e r 2 4 , 1 9 7 7 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f Y e l l o w s t o n e County d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e and placed p e t i t i o n e r on p r o b a t i o n f o r a p e r i o d of one year following h i s p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h e crime of aggravated a s s a u l t . On August 14, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court extended t h e d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e an a d d i t i o n a l two y e a r s t o October 24, 1980, f o l l o w i n g a r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g wherein p e t i t i o n e r admitted a p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n . On A p r i l 4, 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t Court a g a i n extended t h e d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e u n t i l O c t o b e r 2 4 , 1 9 8 2 , f o l l o w i n g a s e c o n d r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g wherein t h e D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t p e t i t i o n e r had a g a i n v i o l a t e d h i s p a r o l e . On February 2, 1981, p e t i t i o n e r was found g u i l t y of t h e crime of c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f , a misdemeanor, i n t h e J u s t i c e Court of Yellowstone County. Two days l a t e r t h e county a t t o r n e y f i l e d a t h i r d p e t i t i o n f o r r e v o c a t i o n of p e t i t i o n e r ' s d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e based on t h i s misdemeanor c o n v i c t i o n which c o n s t i t u t e d a p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n a s w e l l . Following a h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t Court revoked its o r d e r s t a y i n g d e f e r m e n t o f s e n t e n c e and s e n t e n c e d p e t i t i o n e r t o a term of f i v e y e a r s i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n f o r t h e o r i g i n a l crime of aggravated a s s a u l t . P e t i t i o n e r contends i n t h i s habeas corpus proceeding t h a t : (1) t h e D i s t r i c t Court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n t o revoke t h e deferment of s e n t e n c e and t o s e n t e n c e him f o r t h e o r i g i n a l crime because p e t i t i o n e r had completed t h e p e r i o d of deferment and p r o b a t i o n ; and ( 2 ) p e t i t i o n e r was denied e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel by f a i l u r e of h i s court-appointed counsel t o r a i s e t h i s d e f e n s e i n t h e r e v o c a t i o n proceeding. The S t a t e r a i s e s four a d d i t i o n a l i s s u e s t h a t it c o n s i d e r s n e c e s s a r y t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s proceeding: (1) Is a d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e a v a l i d s e n t e n c e t h a t can o n l y be vacated or modified p u r s u a n t t o s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y ? ( 2 ) Is s e c t i o n 46-18-203, MCA, a l i m i t a t i o n upon t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s s e n t e n c i n g a u t h o r i t y ? ( 3 ) What is meant by t h e s t a t u t o r y language of s e c t i o n 46-18-203, MCA, w h e r e i n t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e is g r a n t e d o p t i o n a l and d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y t o " r e t a i n such j u r i s d i c t i o n with h i s c o u r t " ? ( 4 ) Were t h e o r d e r s extending t h e p e r i o d of deferment of i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e i n e x c e s s of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n ? W e f i n d t h a t o n l y t h e f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e p e t i t i o n e r need be addressed by t h e Court i n r e a c h i n g a d e c i s i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r . The D i s t r i c t Court is g r a n t e d broad and f l e x i b l e s e n t e n c i n g a u t h o r i t y by s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n s 46-18-201 e t s e q . , MCA. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e d i s t r i c t judge is g r a n t e d a u t h o r i t y t o d e f e r imposition of s e n t e n c e f o l l o w i n g c o n v i c t i o n of a f e l o n y f o r a p e r i o d n o t exceeding t h r e e y e a r s . S e c t i o n 4 6 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA. I n t h i s a c t i o n t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s s e n t e n c e was d e f e r r e d on t h r e e s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s by t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r a t o t a l d e f e r r a l p e r i o d of f i v e y e a r s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of October 24, 1977, d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e and placed p e t i t i o n e r on p r o b a t i o n f o r a p e r i o d of one y e a r . Following an admitted v i o l a t i o n of p r o b a t i o n a r y r u l e s , t h e p e r i o d of deferment was extended an a d d i t i o n a l two y e a r s . Following a second v i o l a t i o n of p r o b a t i o n a r y r u l e s , t h e p e r i o d of deferment was extended a n o t h e r two y e a r s . D u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d o f d e f e r m e n t , p e t i t i o n e r was found g u i l t y of a misdemeanor, h i s deferment was revoked and he was sentenced t o f i v e y e a r s imprisonment. P e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court exceeded its j u r i s d i c t i o n i n extending t h e t o t a l time of deferment beyond t h e three-year l i m i t a t i o n provided by s t a t u t e , and we a g r e e . S e c t i o n 4 6 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA, g i v e s t h e d i s t r i c t judge a u t h o r i t y t o d e f e r i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e f o l l o w i n g c o n v i c t i o n of a f e l o n y f o r a p e r i o d n o t exceeding t h r e e y e a r s . The language of t h e s t a t u t e is c l e a r and unambiguous and it is t h e f u n c t i o n of t h i s C o u r t , a s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA, t o simply a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what is i n terms or i n s u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e . "When t h e language of t h e s t a t u t e is p l a i n , unambiguous, d i r e c t and c q r t a i n , t h e s t a t u t e speaks f o r i t s e l f and t h e r e is nothing f o r t h e Court t o c o n s t r u e . " S t a t e , E t c . v. D i s t r i c t Court, E t c . ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 591 P.2d 656, 662, 36 St.Rep. 489, 496, and c a s e s t h e r e i n c i t e d . "The i n t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must f i r s t be determined from t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words used and i f t h e meaning of t h e s t a t u t e can be s o determined, t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and a p p l y any o t h e r means of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " S t a t e , E t c . v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t , E t c . , s u p r a . Applying t h e s e r u l e s we hold t h a t s e c t i o n 46-18- 2 0 1 ( l ) ( a ) , MCA, a l l o w s t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o revoke a d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e f o r any f e l o n y o n l y d u r i n g t h e three-year p e r i o d immediately f o l l o w i n g t h e i n i t i a l s e n t e n c e d e f e r r a l . T h i s three-year p e r i o d cannot be extended by an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The D i s t r i c t Court can impose c o n d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n d u r i n g t h e t i m e of deferment which a r e n o t i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o t h e d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e , b u t t h e c o u r t cannot extend t h e p e r i o d of deferment beyond t h e maximum three-year p e r i o d mandated by s e c t i o n 46-18-201(1)(a), MCA. I n t h i s a c t i o n t h e maximum p e r i o d f o r revoking a d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e had e l a p s e d and t h e D i s t r i c t Court no l o n g e r had j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t h e t i m e it s e n t e n c e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o s e r v e f i v e y e a r s i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n f o r t h e o r i g i n a l crime of aggravated a s s a u l t . S i n c e t h e D i s t r i c t Court had l o s t its j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e s e n t e n c e imposed by it is void. Accordingly t h e w r i t of habeas corpus is g r a n t e d , and t h e r e s p o n d e n t is d i r e c t e d t o r e l e a s e p e t i t i o n e r f r o m confinement i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n f o r t h w i t h a b s e n t independent grounds f o r holding p e t i t i o n e r i n custody. = ? L + , g u & Chief J u s f ice We Concur: