Title: STATE v TATE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-202 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. JAMES MONTE TATE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth ~udicial ~istrict, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Stacey and Jarussi, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: October 8, 1981 Decided: January 14, 1982 Filed: JAN 1 4 i982 M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Following a jury t r i a l before t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t Court, Yellowstone County, t h e defendant, James Monte Tate was convicted of burglary and sentenced t o t e n (10) years i n t h e Montana S t a t e Prison. Defendant appeals. The f a c t s p e r t i n e n t t o t h e i s s u e r a i s e d i n t h i s appeal can be concisely s t a t e d a s follows: On April 29, 1980, an information was f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court charging defendant with t h e o f f e n s e of burglary. The defendant entered a p l e a of n o t g u i l t y t o the charge. A t r i a l was held on March 10th and l l t h , 1981. A t t r i a l , a f t e r t h e S t a t e had presented i t s opening statement, t h e defendant requested t o speak p r i v a t e l y with t h e presiding judge. The judge and defendant then conferred i n chambers without a t t o r n e y s present. The defendant i n d i c a t e d he had second thoughts about a p r i o r p l e a bargain o f f e r . The defendant s t a t e d he had a drinking problem and wanted help i n overcoming t h a t problem. He desired placement i n an alcohol treatment f a c i l i t y and probation i n exchange f o r a g u i l t y plea. The judge questioned defendant regarding t h e defendant's drinking. Defendant s t a t e d he had had t h e problem s i n c e he was s i x t e e n (16) o r seventeen (17) and t h a t he had j u s t turned age eighteen (18). He s t a t e d he had committed o t h e r b u r g l a r i e s a s a juvenile, a l l while i n t o x i c a t e d . Defendant admitted t o using marijuana occasionally, and t o having t r i e d o t h e r drugs. The judge then conferred with t h e a t t o r n e y s o u t of t h e presence of t h e defendant. The judge i n d i c a t e d t h a t he w a s ". . . turning over t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a g u i l t y p l e a t o f i r s t send him up t o Galen, run him through t h e treatment, and then when he g e t s back, p u t him up i n Swan River on a 5-year sentence . . ." The S t a t e d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e plan. Defense counsel then conferred with t h e defendant. N o record was made a t t h i s conference; apparently t h e defendant r e j e c t e d t h e plan because no g u i l t y p l e a was entered and t h e t r i a l resumed. Defendant was found g u i l t y and sentenced by t h e presiding judge t o a t e r m of t e n (10) years i n t h e Montana S t a t e Prison. The judge based t h i s sentence on t h e pre-sentence r e p o r t , t h e f a c t s adduced a t t r i a l , t h e defendant's age, and t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e under t h e p a r o l e provisions i n Montana. The s o l e i s s u e r a i s e d on appeal i s whether t h e defendant was punished f o r exercising h i s r i g h t t o a jury t r i a l . A s noted i n S t a t e v. Baldwin (1981), Mont. I 629 P.2d 2 2 2 , 38 St.Rep. 882, "To punish a person f o r e x e r c i s i n g a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t i s a b a s i c due process v i o l a t i o n " ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) , 629 P.2d a t 225, 38 St.Rep. a t 884-85. This Court a l s o acknowledged i n Baldwin, supra, t h a t : " [ i ] t may be d i f f i c u l t t o d i s t i n g u i s h between s i t u a t i o n s where leniency i s o f f e r e d i n ex- change f o r a p l e a and s i t u a t i o n s where t h e defendant i s punished f o r e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t t o t r i a l by jury." 629 P.2d a t 225, 38 St.Rep. a t 885. I n order t o eliminate t h i s d i f f i c u l t y and a l s o t o p r o t e c t a criminal defendant's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , t h i s Court i n Baldwin adopted ABA standard 14-sec. 1 . 8 ( b ) , ABA Standards f o r Criminal J u s t i c e (2d. ed. 1980). This standard d e c l a r e s t h a t : " ( b ) The c o u r t should n o t impose upon a defen- d a n t any sentence i n excess of t h a t which would be j u s t i f i e d by any of t h e p r o t e c t i v e , d e t e r r e n t , o r o t h e r purposes of t h e criminal law because t h e defendant has chosen t o r e q u i r e t h e prosecu- t i o n t o prove g u i l t a t t r i a l r a t h e r than t o e n t e r a p l e a of g u i l t y o r nolo contendere." To implement t h i s standard and f a c i l i t a t e j u d i c i a l review, w e declared i n Baldwin t h a t : ". . . a sentencing c o u r t which becomes involved i n t h e p l e a bargaining process, and which imposes a harsher sentence a f t e r t r i a l than was o f f e r e d i n exchange f o r a g u i l t y p l e a , must s p e c i f i c a l l y p o i n t -- o u t t h e f a c t o r s t h a t j u s t i f y t h e increased - sentence." 629 P.2d a t 226, 38 St.Rep. a t 886. (Emphasis added.) I n t h i s case, t h e sentencing c o u r t imposed i t s e l f i n t h e p l e a bargaining process and suggested t h a t defendant be sentenced t o treatment a t the Galen Alcoholic Treatment Center and then f i v e (5) years a t Swan River i n s t e a d of t h e Montana S t a t e Prison. This o f f e r w a s based p r i m a r i l y on t h e c o u r t ' s b e l i e f t h a t t h e defendant d i d have a drinking problem and a l s o because t h e defendant w a s only eighteen (18) years o l d . Following t r i a l defendant was sentenced t o t e n ( 1 0 ) years i n the Montana S t a t e Prison. The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t it based t h i s sentence on ". . . a l l of t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e set f o r t h i n the Pre-Sentence Report and considering t h e f a c t s of t h e t r i a l of t h i s a c t i o n , and considering a l s o t h e f a c t t h a t you a r e 18 years of age and t h a t t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h a t a r e given t o you under t h e p a r o l e r i g h t s i n t h i s S t a t e . . ." To a l a r g e degree, t h e sentencing c o u r t had much of t h i s information a t i t s disposal when it o f f e r e d t h e o r i g i n a l p l e a bargain t o t h e defendant. I t i s impossible t o determine what new information o r f a c t s l e d t h e sentencing c o u r t t o i n c r e a s e the sentence. Enumerating t h e general grounds f o r t h e defendant's sentence does not " p o i n t o u t t h e f a c t o r s " j u s t i f y i n g t h e increased sentence with s u f f i c i e n t s p e c i f i c i t y , a s required by Baldwin, supra. W e note t h a t t h e sentencing c o u r t i n t h i s case rendered i t s decision on March 20, 1981, approximately s i x weeks p r i o r t o our d e c i s i o n i n Baldwin. A s a r e s u l t , i t s decision could n o t conform with t h e Baldwin requirements. I n l i g h t of t h i s , we vacate t h e defendant's sentence and remand t h i s case f o r re-sentencing i n conformity with ~ a l d w i n . W e Concur: %oce&.9 Chief. J u s t i c e 4&, dQQ .\