IN THE SUPREME CObRT OF THE STATE OF MON rANA 

THE STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

CLYDE ALLEN JOHNSON. 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-Fmt Jud~eial District. 

In and for the County of Ravalli, 

The Honorable Jeffrey tl. Langton, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

William F. Hooks, Appellate Defender Office, Helena, Montana; J.G. 

Shoekley, Victor. Montana 

For Respondent: 

Joseph P. Ma/urek, Attorney General, Jennlfer Anders, Assistant 

Attorney General, Helena, Montana; George H. Corn, Ravall~ County 

.\ttomey. IIarnilton, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: April 8, 1998 
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion ofthe Court 

I1 Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3jc), Montaiia Supreme Court 1990 6ntlcmal 

Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent but shall be filed as 

a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, 

Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to 

West Group in the quarterly table of noneitable cases issued by this Court. 

q7 This is an appeal by the defendant, Clyde Allen Johnson (Johnson), from the August 

21, 1996 opinion and order of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, 

denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We hold that the issues raised by Johnson 

in his appeal are moot. Therefore, we affirm. 

Background 

el3 On March 5, 1996, Johnson entered an AEford plea to a charge of attempted dehberatc 

homicide and a plea of guilty to a charge of criminal endangerment in Ravalli County Cause 

No. CR 95-81, These pleas were entered under the terms of a March 5, 1996 written plea 

agreement (the plea agreement). The State had also previously charged Johnson in Ravalli 

County Cause No. CR 94-57 with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent. He 

was convicted of these charges following a jury trial on November 20 and 21, 1995, and this 

conviction has been affirmed on appeal to this Court. State v. Johnson, 1998 MT 107, -- 

P2d 55 St. Rep. 

74 As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend certain sentences 
covering both Johnson's pleas in Cause No. C 95-81 and his conviction in Cause No. CX 

94-57. Spec~fically, the plea agreement. In pertinent part. prov~ded for a reccmme~~dat~on 

of imprrsonment as follows: 

Sexual Intercourse Without Consent 20 years 

(In Cause No. CR 94-57) 

Persisteat Felony Offender 30 years 

Criminal Endangerment (1 Count) 10 years 

Re Tom Stanley, Janet Stanley and 

Don Porter 

Weapon Enhancement 10 years 

Attempted Deliberate Homicide 

(1 Count) re Marlene Porter 20 years 

Weapon Enhancement 10 years 

To run consecutively for a total of 100 years 

with 20 years of said term suspended 

The Defendant will be denied parole eligibility and participation in 

the supervised release program until he has served 20 years in Montana 

State Prison. 

'15 At the sentencing hearing the State and defense counsel recommended that the trial 

court sentence Johnson in accordance with the plea agreement. The court sentenced Johnson 

to a term of 20 years in the state prison on each of the three charges of sexual intercourse 

without consent. to be served concurrently, with a parole restriction requiring the entire 

sentence to be served. The court also imposed terms of 10 vears imprisonment on the 

criminal endangerment charge, 20 years imprisonment on the attempted deliberate homicide 

charge, and an additional 10 years on each count for use of a weapon. 'The court designated 

Johnson as a persistent felony offender and enhanced the sentence with an additional term 
of 30 years imprisonment. T'ne court &en imposed an additional restriction on parole 

eligibility: 

1 mrill separately require, in regard to the Criminal Endangerment and 

-Attempted Deliberate Homicide sentencing [Cause No. CR 95-81]. that you 

serve 20 years without parole; that to be served concurrently with the parole 

restriction on Sexual Intercourse Without Consent [Cause KO. CR 94-57]. 

The Court's intent there is tlnat ! understand yo~i may be appealing the 

Sexual Intercourse Without Consent conviction. The Court's intent is that even 

if that conviction should be overturned by some turn of fate, you will still be 

serve [sic] 20 years without parole in regard to this particular offense. 

The sentences imposed for the shooting ~nctdent [Cause No. CR 95-81] uere to he served 

consecutively, for a total of 100 years in prison, with 20 years suspended. Johnson is 

ineligible for parole for 20 years. 

76 Johnson objected to the parole restriction, and, ultimately, moved to withdram his 

guilty plea in Cause No. CR 95-81 on the ground that it was his understanding when he 

signed the plea agreement that the parole restriction in the plea agreement would not apply 

in Cause No. CR 94-57. Specifically, Johnson contended that it was his belief that if his 

conviction for sexual intercourse without consent in Cause No. 94-57 was overturned on 

appeal, then the whole sentence would be reconsidered, and that if the plea agreement was 

interpreted to provide othenvise, then he had entered into it upon a fundamental mistake or 

misunderstanding as to the consequences of the agreement. The trial court disagreed and 

denied Johnson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, concluding that the terms of the plea 

agreement were clear and unambiguous and that Johnson's claimed belief to the contrary was 

simply a "panic" reaction to what he in fact knew all along. This appeal followed 
Discussion 

#!7 On appeal Johnson arLgues that the Districr Court erred and abused its discretion when 

it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and that the court failed to adequately 

interrogate and advise him prior to the entry of his plea in Cause No. CR 95-81. He also 

contends that his guilty plea was entered upon a fundamental mistake or misnnderstanding 

as to the application of the parole restriction. We conclude, however, that we need not 

address Johnson's substantive arguments. 

78 The underlying basis for Johnson's appeal is his claimed understanding that the plea 

agreement reqtiircd rccanjideration of the parole restriction imp~sed as part of the sentence 

in Cause No. CR 95-81, if his conviction of certain other charges included under the plea 

agreement--specifically the sexual intercourse without consent charges in Cause No. CR 94- 

57--was overturned on appeal. 

79 As indicated above, however, we have affirmed Johnson's conviction of the sexual 

intercourse without consent charges in Cause No. CR 94-57. Accordingly, the issues which 

he raises on appeal are effectively moot. Regardless of Johnson's belief, he will have to senrc 

a minimum of 20 years before he is parole eligible whether or not the 20-year parole 

restriction attaches to the sentence imposed in Cause No. CR 94-57 or Cause Lo. CR 95-81. 

T10 Affirmed. 
We Concur: