Title: STATE v SATTLER

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13159 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - ROBERT F, SATTLER, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert J. Boyd, Judge presiding, Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John P r a t e r , Terry, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Joseph Connors, County Attorney, Anaconda, Montana Argument submitted on b r i e f s . . - A 3 ) i; { , A / > , Filed: Submitted: April 21, 1976 Decided : mf L 3 @ ; & M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from t h e r e f u s a l of t h e d i s t r i c t court Deer Lodge County t o allow a convicted felon t o withdraw h i s plea of g u i l t y . The f a c t s a r e not i n dispute. Robert F. S a t t l e r and h i s wife were a r r e s t e d by the a u t h o r i t i e s of Deer Lodge County and charged with t h e crime of aggravated burglary on o r about February 20, 1975. Tim W. Reardon, Deer Lodge County Public Defender, contacted t h e couple i n t h e county j a i l a t Anaconda on February 21, 1975. He was informed t h a t Lynn S a t t l e r , t h e wife, was pregnant and she was having some d i f f i c u l t i e s i n j a i l due t o her pregnancy. Defense counsel found t h a t b a i l f o r $13,000 f o r each person had been s e t and n e i t h e r could make b a i l . Thereafter, defense counsel contacted t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e and arrangements were made f o r t h e couple t o waive preliminary hearing and Lynn S a t t l e r was released on her own recognizance. O n t h a t same d a t e , February 21, another felony ch.arge was f i l e d i n t h e adjacent county of S i l v e r Bow charging t h e couple with t h e crime of armed robbery of Fairmont Hot Springs, a r e s o r t s i t u a t e d between Butte and Anaconda, Montana. S a t t l e r entered a plea of not g u i l t y t o t h a t charge on March 5 , 1975. During t h i s period, Reardon informed S a t t l e r t h e r e would be a change of defense counsel under t h e Defender Project sometime i n March and on March 17, 1975, M r . John P r a t e r was appointed Public Defender f o r t-he t h i r d j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t and assumed the defense of t h e i n s t a n t case. Reardon agreed t o assist P r a t e r and discussed a l l t h e d e t a i l s of t h e case with him. Counsel discussed t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of plea bargaining with t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e a t t h e request of defendant S a t t l e r , and pursuant t h e r e t o he changed h i s not g u i l t y plea t o g u i l t y and was sentenced t o 20 years i n t h e s t a t e prison. 4s ~ J ~ T L ~i t h e ~l.tfd bargain Lynn S a t t l e r was t o 2 n c e i lea aL- g u i l t y (she did so on !-fay 17, and t h e r e a f t e r received an 3 year suspended sentence) and no charges would be prosecuted by $:he a u t h o r i t i e s of S i l v e r Bow County on t h e armed robbery. There- a l t e r on t h e same day of defendant's plea, t h e evidence on t h e burglary charge was returned t o i t s owner. O n April 3, defendant escaped from t h e county j a i l . H e was Later apprehended and plead g u i l t y t o an escape charge. O n May 14, 1975, defendant through a new counsel, moved ::he ,:ourt t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y plea. H i s motion was denied. The s o l e i s s u e i s whether o r not under the f a c t s the d i s - r r i c c ~ o u r t erred i n refusing t o allow defendant t o withdraw h i s plea. This Court cannot imagine a stronger f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n s u p p d r t of a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s decision t o not allow a withdrawal + J , : a g u i l t y plea. For two months defendant through competent ~ o u n s e l d e a l t with and received every consideration the a u t h o r i t i e s ~i two counties i n which he i s alleged t o have committed serious ieionies, could give. H i s wife, a l s o charged with t h e f e l o n i e s , 3pent but one day i n j a i l , v7as allowed t o go f r e e on her own recognizance and u l t i m a t e l y received a suspended sentence. N o w 'zhdz t h e evidence of h i s burglary has been returned t o i t s r i g h t f u l \mner and nay no longer be a v a i l a b l e f o r use a t t r i a l , defendant ,qants t o play games with t h e court. In S t a t e v. G r i f f i n , Mont . , 535 P.2d 498, 504, 32 St.:<ep. 446, 455, the Court s t a t e d : I I . I - Ji -'. d b The t r i a l judge has complete d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s matter, section 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947 Ji * ; k . " 5ee 3lso. i t a t e v. S c a l i s e , 131 Mont. 238, 309 P.2d 1010; S t a t e v. ?elke, 143 Xont. 262, 389 P.2d 164. Here, defendant i s t r y i n g t o enjoy a l l of the b e n e f i t s i ,Lea bargaining arrangement without complying with it. I n ;fate v. Nance, 120 Mont. 152, 166, 184 P.2d 554, the Court s a i d : "9; 9; A - it will not lend its assistance to an accused criminal in escaping the obligations of his a reement after accepting the benefits thereof. 6 The decision of the district court is affirmed. We Concur: &df Justices.