IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. 14789 

WALTER SCHANTLE, 

Petitioner, 

ROGER CRIST, Warden, 

Montana State Prison, 

Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

PER CURIAM: 

Original application by Walter Schantle for a writ of 

habeas corpus directed against the warden of the Montana State 

Prison, Roger Crist. 

Schantle had previously sought a writ of habeas corpus 

from the United States District Court for the District of 

Montana, Billings Division, but writ was denied by that 

Court on the grounds that Schantle had not exhausted his 

available state remedies, 

0; November 22, 1976, in the District Court for the 

Thirteenth Judicial District of Stillwater County, Schantle 

entered a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary involving a 

grocery store in Absarokee, Montana. The crime was alleged 

to have occurred on July 22, 1976. He was sentenced to ten 

years at hard labor in the state prison of the State of 

Montana upon judgment and conviction following his plea of 

guilty. 

Schantle seeks a declaration that his conviction was 

'illegal upon these grounds: (1) that he was refused the 

\ 

right to proceed as his own attorney in the Stillwater 
County ~istrict Court; (2) that the District Court failed to 

interrogate him as to the elements constituting the crime 

with which he was charged; (3) that the petitioner's courtappointed attorneys failed to assist petitioner with the 

filing of pretrial motions or to provide effective assistance 

in connection with his defense to the charges; (4) the 

pretrial motions filed by petitioner were not heard by the 

District Court; (5) that new counsel was appointed for 

petitioner outside of his presence in court; and (6) that he 

was coerced into pleading guilty by the threat of the filing 

of prior convictions. 

Petitioner has been supplied with a transcript of the 

proceedings that occurred when he entered his plea of guilty. 

Upon receipt of his petition, the matter was referred to the 

District Court of Stillwater County for a factual determination. A hearing on his petition was conducted by Judge Jack 

D. Shanstrom, who was called into the Thirteenth District in 

connection with this matter on February 28, 1980. A transcript of the proceedings before Judge Shanstrom are also 

part of our record here. 

Schantle was arraigned with a codefendant before the 

District Court in Stillwater County on August 3, 1976. He 

stood mute as to the three counts charged against him, and 

the court entered his plea of not guilty to each of the 

charges. The court further appointed Richard W. Heard, an 

attorney of Columbus, Montana, to represent Schantle and the 

codefendant. 

We find that on August 26, 1976, Schantle, with his 

codefendant, wrote a letter to the district judge advising 

that they dismissed attorney Heard and would thereafter act 

in their own defense. On August 26, 1976, Schantle also 
filed a letter entitled, A Motion for Probable Cause Hearing, 

asking the court to set a date for the same. On September 

22, 1976, Schantle and his codefendant filed in District 

Court a motion for a production and suppression of evidence 

hearing. On October 23, 1976, Schantle and his codefendant 

filed in court a motion for a just cause hearing and a 

motion that the court show cause within three days why the 

District Court did not grant their motion for a production 

and suppression of evidence hearing previously filed. On 

November 3, 1976, the codefendants had also filed a motion 

for discovery requiring the county attorney to produce all 

evidence which would be used at the trial of the defendants. 

Attorney Heard testified before Judge Shanstrom in the 

hearing on the habeas corpus proceedings. He testified that 

on October 27, 1976, he visited in the jail in Yellowstone 

County Courthouse with Schantle and the codefendant, and 

that they indicated an unwillingness for Heard to represent 

them at trial. Heard then went to the presiding district 

judge who advised that he would appoint John Adams, an 

attorney in Billings, Montana, to represent both defendants. 

Attorney Heard had only one conference with the defendants, 

that on October 27. The defendants had been removed from 

Columbus, Montana, the county seat of Stillwater County, to 

the jail in Yellowstone County in Billings, Montana, some 

forty miles away. After Heard received a copy of the letter 

dismissing him as attorney, he undertook no further actions 

on behalf of the defendant Schantle. 

John Adams testified that after he was appointed by 

Judge Luedke, he visited with the defendants in the first 

part of November, 1976. He states that he did not discuss 

any defenses with Schantle, particularly because he did not 
find from a review of the county attorney's file and the 

evidence therein that there were any legal defenses to the 

charges. His discussion with Schantle was on the point of 

what could be done with the county attorney of Stillwater 

County to effect the least possible sentence for Schantle on 

the crimes charged. He was informed by Schantle that the 

county attorney was threatening to file notice of prior 

convictions against Schantle for the purpose of increased 

punishment if he did not plead guilty to the charges. 

Trial of the charges in Stillwater County against the 

defendant had been set for November 29, 1976. On November 

16, 1976, the county attorney did in fact file a notice of 

prior convictions for the purpose of seeking increased 

punishment against Schantle. 

On November 22, 1976, before the presiding judge, but 

in the courtroom in Yellowstone County, pursuant to agreement, the defendant, and his attorney Mr. Adams, and the 

county attorney of Stillwater County appeared. As the 

proceedings opened, Mr. Adams, in the presence of Schantle, 

informed the court that Schantle had advised that with 

respect to the count of simple burglary, he would like to 

withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a new plea to that 

charge. The court granted that request. The proceedings 

that followed are here set forth verbatim: 

"THE COURT: . . . Mr. Schantle, under Count No. 

I you are charged with the crime of burglary, 

which was alleged to have occurred on or about 

July 23rd, 1976. What is your plea to this 

count? 

"THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I'd like to know 

what I'm pleading to. 

"THE COURT: All right, Count No. I says that 

you knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in 

an occupied structure with the purpose to commit 

an offense therein, to-wit: defendant entered 
the business premises of Milligan's IGA store 

with the purpose to commit theft. Now, that's 

Count No. I. That's what you're pleading to. 

"MR. ADAMS: Further I should indicate that the 

punishment, this crime carries a maximum punishment of ten years. I believe that is what you're 

interested in. 

"THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 

"Your Honor, I'll enter a plea of guilty to that 

charge if that is all that is going to be filed 

against me in District Court as to this crime 

or any crimes arising out of it or as to any 

further action that might be filed against me 

stemming from my past or from the present. 

"THE COURT: Will, I guess, Mr. Laws, that calls 

for -- 

"MR. LAWS: Your Honor, Stillwater County is 

willing to dismiss Counts I1 and I11 against 

Mr. Schantle and will not notice any priors on 

the matter. 

"THE COURT: All right, does that answer your 

question? 

"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. And I'll plead 

guilty. 

"THE COURT: All right. Now, the penalty is a 

maximum of 10 years, Mr. Schantle, and in view 

of your past record you should anticipate that's 

probably the sentence you're going to get. I 

want you to understand that right from the beginning. 

"Has anybody promised you anything just to get 

you to come in here and plead guilty to this 

count? 

"THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. 

"THE COURT: Has anybody threatened you to force 

you to come in this morning and plead? 

"THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. 

"THE COURT: Well, they're saying that you went 

unlawfully to this IGA store for the purpose of 

stealing. Is that what you did? 

"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. Your Honor, could I 

ask for a pre-sentence investigation before sentence is pronounced? 

"THE COURT: Do you have any information concerning the past record of Mr. Schantle? 
"MR. LAWS: Your Honor, I have an FBI rap sheet 

on Mr. Schantle, but other than that, the fact 

that he has a common-law wife and three children, 

I know nothing more about his background. 

"THE COURT: Mr. Schantle, I just want to make 

it clear that you understand normally you would 

be entitled to have a jury trial on this charge-- 

and one is scheduled for the 29th of this month-- 

and during that trial you have the right to remain silent without your silence being held or 

used against you; and also you have the right to 

have all the witnesses against you appear in open 

court so that you can see them, you can hear them, 

and you can have them cross-examined. Now, if I 

accept this plea of guilty to Count No. I, there 

won't be any trial, there won't be any witnesses. 

And you have already told me what you have done. 

NOW, is that what you want? 

"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

"THE COURT: Well, the record may show that the 

Court accepts the plea of guilty to Count No. I 

as being voluntary and with knowledge of the consequences." 

With respect to the presentence investigation, Schantle 

was advised by the court that in view of his prior record 

that he would in any event was going to receive a ten year 

sentence and that the presentence report would have little 

effect. Upon interrogation by Mr. Adams if he wanted to be 

sentenced, the defendant replied "Yeah." Thereupon the 

court pronounced sentence. 

On the foregoing, this Court finds and concludes that 

defendant entered his plea of guilty to the crime of burglary 

voluntarily and with full knowledge of the consequences; 

that he did so after admitting to the District Court that he 

did in fact commit the act for which he was charged. It 

further appears that Schantle's entry of plea was the result 

of a plea bargain under which he received the maximum sentence 

possible for simple burglary, ten years, without increased 

punishment by reason of prior convictions. Two other criminal 

counts against him were dismissed. 
The standard under which the validity of a guilty plea 

is judged is whether the plea represents a voluntary and 

intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action 

open to the defendant as affirmatively disclosed by the 

record. North Carolina v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25, 31, 

91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162, 168; Brady v. United 

States (1970), 397 U.S. 742, 747, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1468, 25 

L.Ed. 2d 747, 755; Wilkins v. Erickson (9th Cir. 1974) , 505 

F.2d 761, 763; State v. Griffin (1975), 167 Mont. 11, 21, 

535 P.2d 498, 503. 

We find no merit in the application for habeas corpus 

here. 

DISMISSED. 

DATED this day of May, 1980. 

Chief Justice