### No. 12304 IN

### THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 

### STATE OF MONTANA

THE STATE OF MONTANA ex rel. CHINGWENKE 

### LINTZ, Petitioner,

DISTRICT COURT OF 

### THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANPs, Respondent.


### @r3-g Pnal Proceedings. Counsel of Record: 

### ForAppellant: 

### David Astle argued, Kalispell, Montana 59901. Patrick Springerargued, Kalispell, Montana 59901. For Respondent: H. 

### James Oleson, argued, CountyAttorney, Kalispell, Montana 

### 59901. Robert 

### t. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montzna 

### 5960l.

Submitted: June 

### 21, 1972 Decided:

## $UN29

## 4972 Filed:Per Curiam: This 

### isan originalproceeding brought by relator as a petition for a post-conviction hearing, Upon hearing the petition
ex parte, this Court granted an order to show cause directed to the district court of the eleventhjudicial district, theHon. Robert S. Iceller, presiding. Returnwas made, including a transcript of hearing before the district court. 

### A motion to quash
was made and oralargument had. Briefly, petitioner, 21 years of age, was arrested for the criminal sale of dangerous drugs, a felony. Upon arraignment he plead not guilty, subsequentlychanged to a guilty plea. A hearing was held on "mitigation or aggravation of sentence''
on May 17, 1972. Defendant was granted a deferred imposition of sentence for a period of three years inan order setting forth what we 

### willterm "usual conditions''. Defendant had orally agreed to cooperate with the court and law enforcement officials. Inhis arrest and the subsequent investigation, defendant had voluntarily led officers to other drugs, marihuana, cocaine and P.C.P. IIe had sold twelve lids of marihuana. He claimed the cache of other drugs belonged to one Bristow. At the presentence hearing, under oath, defendant told
one story, the details of which arenot of great importance here, but which were believed by the trialcourt. At the subsequent trialof theheretofore mentioned Bristow, defendant told a different story which convinced the court that he had previously perjured himself. He then refused to answer for fear of further incriminating himself---something that he did not raise atthe presentence hearing. The trialjudge inhisreturn characterizes defendant's testimony atthe Bristow trialas a "farce, a sham"; and, thathis lack of memory was a "palpable lie" and he made a IImockery" of the court.A reading of the transcript by this Court reveals the characLerizations of the trialcourt tobe apt. The defendant had clearly deceived and misrepresented matters to obtain a deferred imposition of sentence. A petition forrevocation of chat deferred imposition of sentencewas made, a hearingwas held, and the statutory presumption of a deferred imposition of sencence was clearly rebutted. The trial court sentenced defendant to fifteen years. We are informed that an appeal isbeing taken so that errors, if any, may be reviewed in the normal appeal process. After reviewing the record, we do not find any abuse of discretion sufficient for this Court to take original jurisdiction atthis time. Accordingly, the order to show cause previously granted 

### is quashed. Relator inhis petition also seeks relief by way of stay of execution of the sentence, pending appeal. We deny that relief at this time without prejudice.