Title: STATE v DINNDORF

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N O . 82-309 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1 9 8 3 THE STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , v s . RAYMOND M. DINNDOPt, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h 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 o f G a l l a t i n H o n o r a b l e W . W . L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f R e c o r d : F o r A p p e l l a n t : Nash and Nash, Bozeman, Montana uqni-hec- M i c h a e l P. Sand a r g u e d and Mark & a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana F o r %:Zespondent: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana A . M i c h a e l S a l v a g n i , County A t t o r n e y , Bozeman, Montana John A t k i n s , S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana - - - S u b m i t t e d : January 1 8 , 1983 D e c i d e d : February 3, 1983 ; Lij 3 - 1983 F i l e d : \ C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendant a p p e a l s a s e n t e n c e and judgment of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t e n t e r e d J u l y 28, 1982. Defendant was sentenced t o t e n y e a r s imprisonment f o r n e g l i g e n t homicide. S p e c i f i c a l l y , d e f e n d a n t asserts e r r o r f o r d e n i a l of h i s motion to withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a s . On A p r i l 11, 1982, d e f e n d a n t was t h e d r i v e r i n a s i n g l e - v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t . H i s p a s s e n g e r d i e d . An i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d o n A p r i l 19 c h a r g i n g him w i t h n e g l i g e n t homicide, d r i v i n g w i t h o u t a v a l i d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e , and d r i v i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l . Defendant was a r r a i g n e d on May 3 , which w a s continued t o May 1 0 , and t h e n to May 24, and t h e n to J u l y 26. On J u l y 26, d e f e n d a n t p l e d g u i l t y to a l l c h a r g e s . The p r o s e c u t o r recommended a ten-year s e n t e n c e on t h e n e g l i g e n t homicide c h a r g e . The d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h e n s t a t e d to t h e c o u r t r " I ' m a l i t t l e t a k e n a b a c k by t h e County A t t o r n e y ' s recommendation. It w a s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e r e would be no recommendation made t o t h e C o u r t as f a r a s s e n t e n c i n g . There was a s p e c i f i c agreement to t h e e f f e c t which h a s been v i o l a t e d by t h e County A t t o r n e y . " The c o u r t r e p l i e d : " [ y l o u know t h e p o l i c y i n t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Department Number One, when t h e r e is a p l e a agreement, t h e t w o a t t o r n e y s meet w i t h t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r and t h e i r c l i e n t and p u t it on t h e r e c o r d . T h e r e ' s nothing on t h e r e c o r d is t h e r e ? " Defense counsel responded, " [ t ] h e r e is n o t , Your Honor." The Court proceeded to p a s s s e n t e n c e ; "on Count I , n e g l i g e n t homicide, you s h a l l spend t e n y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n a t Deer Lodge, Montana ." On J u l y 29, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a s . Hearing on t h e motion was h e l d on August 2, 1982. A t t h e h e a r i n g t h e d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s : "Q. During y o u r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of M r . Dinndorf , d i d y o u have any c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h . . , t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y f o r G a l l a t i n County, r e g a r d i n g t h i s case? A. Y e s , on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s . "Q. Do you r e c a l l a c o n v e r s a t i o n on or about t h e 24th of May, 1982? A. Y e s , I d o . "Q. D o you recall t h e s u b s t a n c e of t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n ? A. Y e s , as I r e c a l l on May 24, I f i l e d a motion to s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e on b e h a l f of my c l i e n t . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e 9:00 o ' c l o c k h e a r i n g , I m e t w i t h [ t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y ] i n h i s o f f i c e as we were i n t h e c o u r s e of p l e a n e g o t i a t i o n s . I was informed a t t h a t time t h a t t h e r e would be no f u r t h e r p l e a n e g o t i a t i o n s i n t h i s matter and I t h e n asked . . . what recommendation he woulq m a k e - - - - - - to t h e C o u r t i f my c l i e n t were to e n t e r a p l e a -- -- - - - - - -- - ---- o f g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e s . I was informed t h a t --- - P - - - --- t h e r e would b e no recommendation made t h a t M r . - - - - - - - - - - p - - -- - - D i n n d o r f ' s p l e a would be s t r i c t l y t o t h e - - - - -- - - C o u r t . " ( ~ m ~ h a s 1 ' s added. I-- When t h e Deputy County A t t o r n e y had an o p p o r t u n i t y to cross- examine, he d e c l i n e d , s t a t i n g : "Your Honor, it's t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e state and myself t h a t I ' m not i n a p o s i t i o n t o con- t e s t t h e t e s t i m o n y of [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] r e g a r d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e o v e r t u r e a p p a r e n t l y made to him by m y s e l f , t h a t I would n o t make a recommendation to t h e C o u r t . T h e r e f o r e , I wouldn't I w i l l n o t c o n t e s t t h a t p o r t i o n of h i s testimony." A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t based upon h i s b e l i e f t h a t t h e r e would be no s e n t e n c e recommendation he a d v i s e d h i s c l i e n t to plead g u i l t y . The D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e motion to withdraw g u i l t y p l e a s and o r d e r e d t h e s h e r i f f to t r a n s p o r t t h e d e f e n d a n t t o Deer Lodge t h a t af t e r n o o n . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s b a s i c a l l y t h a t s i n c e a n agreement was v i o l a t e d , he should have been allowed to withdraw h i s p l e a s of g u i l t y . Respondent asserts t h a t t h e r e n e v e r e x i s t e d a n agreement. Respondent relies on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e procedure of t h e D i s t r i c t w a s never followed. The D i s t r i c t Court adopted t h a t p o s i t i o n , s t a t i n g : " [nlow t h e r e never w a s a p l e a agreement i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . T h e r e ' s no q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h a t . There may have been an o f f e r and t h e r e may have been t h e j o s t l i n g and moving around of a t t o r n e y s as happens many t i m e s i n c r i m i n a l matters. There was n e v e r a p l e a agreement of any kind." The f a c t t h a t t h e District C o u r t ' s p r o c e d u r e was n o t followed d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e t h e e x i s t e n c e of an agreement. P l e a b a r g a i n i n g agreements are s u b j e c t to c o n t r a c t l a w s t a n d a r d s , United S t a t e s v . A r n e t t ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) , 628 F.2d 1162, t h u s oral agreements are v a l i d and b i n d i n g . T h i s C o u r t , i n S t a t e v. A l l e n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - - . . - . - Mont . -- , 645 P.2d 380, 38 St.Rep. 2192, recognized t h e v a l i d i t y of oral p l e a b a r g a i n agreements; t h e c a s e was remanded f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of v a r i o u s f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g w h e t h e r t h e agreement had been o r a l l y amended. I f an agreement or promise d i d e x i s t which was l a t e r v i o l a t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t o r , t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s a v e r y s t r o n g argument and t h e c o u r t should have allowed him t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a s . A United S t a t e s Supreme Court case a d d r e s s e s t h i s s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n . I n S a n t o b e l l o v. New York ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427, t h e d e f e n d a n t agreed to plead g u i l t y to a lesser included o f f e n s e i n exchange f o r t h e p r o s e c u t o r s pro- mise t o r e f r a i n from making a s e n t e n c e recommendation. The sen- t e n c i n g t o o k p l a c e months later and a new p r o s e c u t o r recommended a maximum s e n t e n c e . The Supreme Court h e l d t h a t : "when a p l e a rests i n any s i g n i f i c a n t d e g r e e on a promise o r agreement of t h e p r o s e c u t o r , so t h a t it can be s a i d to be p a r t of t h e inducement or c o n s i d e r a t i o n , such promise must be f u l f i l l e d . " 404 U.S. a t 2621 92 S.Ct. a t 499, 30 L.Ed.2d a t 433. T h i s Court h a s c i t e d and approved of S a n t o b e l l o . - See S t a t e v. A l l e n , s u p r a ; S t a t e v. Brown ( 1 9 8 1 ) , ----- Mont. - . - . - - - 629 P.2d 777, 38 St.Rep. 953. During argument of t h i s case, r e s p o n d e n t b r o u g h t to o u r a t t e n t i o n a r e c e n t case decided by t h e second c i r c u i t . There t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t " o f f t h e r e c o r d " promises made by a p r o s e c u t o r are a n u l l i t y and cannot be r e l i e d upon by a d e f e n d a n t s i n c e t h e p o l i c y of t h e S t a t e of N e w York was to r e c o g n i z e o n l y t h o s e p l e a agreements which are on t h e r e c o r d . S i e g e 1 v. S t a t e of New York (2nd C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) , 691 F.2d 620. W e do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y , r a t h e r w e a g r e e w i t h J u s t i c e P r a t t who d i s s e n t e d because he b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g of S a n t o b e l l o does n o t a l l o w such a r u l i n g . W e do n o t d e c i d e whether t h e r e was an agreement. The c e n t r a l i s s u e is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court s h o u l d have allowed t h e d e f e n d a n t to withdraw h i s p l e a s of g u i l t y . The a u t h o r i t y f o r withdrawing a g u i l t y p l e a is found i n s e c t i o n 46-16-105(2), MCA; " [ a ] t any t i m e b e f o r e or af t e r judgment t h e c o u r t may, f o r good c a u s e shown, p e r m i t t h e p l e a of g u i l t y to be withdrawn and a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y s u b s t i t u t e d . " I t is w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n rests i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t which w i l l not be d i s t u r b e d a b s e n t a showing of abuse of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n , and a n y d o u b t s should be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r of a t r i a l on t h e merits. S t a t e v. Campbell (1979) , 182 Mont. 521, 597 P.2d 1146. I n e f f e c t , t h e District Court concluded t h a t no agreement e x i s t e d s i n c e its p r o c e d u r e s were not f o l l o w e d . W e f i n d error f o r t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o c o n s i d e r o t h e r f a c t o r s i n d i c a t i n g a broken promise. The c o u r t improperly denied d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a s . T h i s case is remanded to allow d e f e n d a n t to r e p l e a d . 7?e corcur: ~ ~ c e 4 . % 4 j Chief Justice/-