NO. 83-480 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1984 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsDAN P. PETERSON, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Hill, 

The IIonorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Bosch, Kohr, Dugdale, Warner, Martin & Kaze; John 

Warner, Havre, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Ronald W. Smith, County Attorney, Havre, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: April 12, 1984 

Decided: July 10, 1984 

Filed: $Uh. I d :9t14 

-. - - - - 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered. the Opinion of the 

Court. 

This case arose in the District Court, Twelfth Judicial 

District, Hill County, where Dan Peterson entered a plea of 

guilty on September 25, 1981, to one count of mitigated 

deliberate homicide and one count of aggravated assault. He 

now appeals the arder of the District Court filed June 23, 

1983, denying the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

According to the motion for leave t o f i l e an information 

filed January 12, 1981, in Hill County, the following 

occurred on January 9, 1981: Carla Peterson, who was 

separated from her husband, Dan, finished work and left to 

meet Roger McIntosh at the Shanty Bar in Havre. At the bar, 

Dan Peterson spoke to Roger and Carla and indicated. that 

their seeing each other was going to cause problems. Dan 

then left the bar. 

Carla and Roger left the bar approximately one-half hour 

later. They walked to Roger's vehicle and Carla got in the 

drivers side. She then heard a shot and saw Roger fall to 

the sidewalk. He had been shot in the head. She screamed 

and ran toward the back door of the bar. But as she ran, she 

was shot in the leg and fell down. Dan Peterson approached 

her with a rifle in his hands, a.nd asked her if she was ready 

to come home. He then looked at her leg and at Roger 

McIntosh and imrnecliately left the scene. 

Peterson was apprehended at his mother's home shortly 

thereafter. His brother said that Peterson broke into his 

home, took a 30.06 rifle and then returned it. When 

Peterson's brother found the gun, it showed signs of having 

been recently fired. 
Peterson gave notice of his intention to rely on the 

defense of a mental disease or defect which precluded his 

having the particular state of mind which is an element of 

the crime charged. He was eventually exa.mined by three 

d-octors and each gave a report that wa.s reviewed by defense 

counsel. 

Negotiations were conducted between Peterson and the 

State, culminating in a written "Offer to Plead Guilty and 

Pre-trial Agreement." The agreement stated that the county 

attorney was to amend the information to charge Peterson with 

one count of mitigated. deliberate homicide and one count of 

aggravated assault rather than the original one count of 

deliberate homicide and one count of attempted deliberate 

homicide. It was upon this condition that Peterson was to 

plead guilty to the amended charges. The agreement a.lso 

contained the following statement: 

"It is further understood by me that by entering a 

plea of Guilty to the charges set forth in the 

amended information I have waived my right to a 

speedy trial by jury, and have admitted each of the 

material- elements co~tained in the charges filed 

against me. I also understand that the Court may 

lawfully impose up to forty (40) years in the 

Montana State Prison on the charge of mitigated 

deliberate homicide and twenty (20) years in the 

Montana State Prison on the charge of aggravated 

assault." 

The agreement was given to Peterson shortly before his 

arraignment on September 25, 1981, and he signed it in the 

hallway before entering the courtroom. It was also signed by 

the county attorney and Peterson's two lawyers, Brian 

Lilletvedt and Robert Morrison. 

Prior to accepting the guilty plea from Peterson, the 

District Court examined Peterson's two attorneys regarding 

their impression of Peterson's understanding of the pretrial 

agreement. They were questioned as to his competence and 
volition in signing the agreement. The court then 

extensively examined Peterson regarding his knowledge of the 

agreement and his basis for signing the agreement and for 

pleading guilty. Peterson was informed of his constitutional 

rights and the fact that by pleading guilty he was waiving 

those rights a.s they regard this case. Peterson answered 

that he knew the maximum potential penalties for the crimes 

to which he was pleading guilty. 

After thorough questioning by the court, Peterson 

pleaded guilty to the mitigated. deliberate homicide and 

aggravated assault charges. On January 15, 1.982, judgment 

was filed sentencing Peterson to 40 years imprisonment on the 

mitigated deliberate homicide charge, to be served 

consecutively with 10 years imprisonment on the aggravated 

assault charge. 

Acting pro se, Peterson filed a notice of appeal of the 

judgment on March 3, 1982. Thereafter, the District Court 

granted Peterson's counsel leave to withdraw and appointed 

substitute counsel. A motion to withdraw his guilty plea was 

filed on April 18, 1983 and the appeal filed by Peterson was 

remanded by this Court for a hearing on the motion. 

On June 10, 1983, the District Court held a hearing on 

Peterson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. peterson' s 

sister-in-law, Peterson's mother, and Peterson testified on 

his behalf. Peterson's previous counsel and the county 

attorney testified for the State. An order denying 

Peterson's motion was filed June 23, 1983. The District 

Court found that: 

". . . the defendant freely, voluntaril-y and on his 

own made the decision to plead guilty to the 

reduced charges and that the reduced charges were 

offered in exchange for his plea. All of these 

actions were done knowingly, freely, voluntarily 
and without any threats, duress, pressures or 

coercion of any kind from any source.. . ." 

On appeal, Peterson raises only the issue of whether the 

District Court was correct in denying his motion to withdraw 

the guilty plea. Upon review of the record, we affirm the 

District Court's action. 

Peterson makes essentially five claims to support his 

contention tha.t his guilty plea was made by mistake or 

involuntarily. First, Peterson claims tha.t he had trouble 

communicating with his attorneys. Second, he claims that an 

article printed in the local newspaper which declared that he 

had pleaded guilty (before he had done so) pressured. h.im to 

plead guilty. Third, he claims that he was denied a copy of 

the report by one of the examining doctors and. was thus 

unable to make an informed choice. Fourth, Peterson claims 

that the possibility that the county attorney involved the 

present case was to testify regarding Peterson's state of 

mind exhibited in regard to his divorce case pressured him to 

plead guilty. Fifth, he claims that he signed the pretrial 

agreement while in a state of shock and that he did not fully 

understand the effect of pleading guilty to mitigated 

deliberate homicide. Peterson contends that, taken as a 

whole, these circumstances induced him to plead guilty. 

The District Court ' s discretion deciding mot ion 

withdraw a guilty plea is to be relied upon unless an abuse 

of that discretion has been shown. State v. Lewis (1978), 

177 Mont. 474, 582 P.2d 346; State v. Doty (1-977), 173 Mont. 

566 P.2d 1388. In Lewis, this Court stated that: 

"Where a District Court has done all that it can to 

determine, from the defendant or otherwise, that 

the proposed plea of guilty is voluntarily ma.de, 

the defendant understands what he is doing and is 

advised of the consequences of his plea, including 

the nature and extent of his punishment, has been 
adequately advised by counsel, and has been treated 

fairly at all stages of the prosecution against 

him, and that in fact the defendant states he is 

guilty of the charges made, then this Court has a 

duty to support the District Court when it allows a 

plea of guilty to be entered in place of a plea of 

not guilty." 177 Mont. at 484, 582 P.2d at 352. 

Tha.t duty requires us here to uphold the District Court's 

action. The court found, through questioning of Peterson and 

his counsel, that he was competent, acting voluntarily and 

that he understood the charges and possible punishment. 

Peterson was not acting under the influence of drugs or 

alcohol, admitted that his counsel were competent and kept 

him well-advised, and admitted in open court the facts upon 

which his guilt is based. We hold that because these 

conditions were fulfilled, the guilty plea should be upheld. 

Lewis, 177 Mont. at 485, 582 P.2d at 352. 

Peterson's claims were not substantiated by the record 

of the hearing at which the District Court accepted his plea 

or by the record of the hearing on his motion to withdraw his 

plea. There was sufficient communication with his attorneys, 

including discussions regarding the doctors' reports and the 

potential uses of them in Peterson's defense. As to the 

newspaper report and the possibilj-ty of the county attorney 

testifying, Peterson made no mention or gave no indication 

that these influenced his guilty plea whe~ he was 

interrogated by the District Court. Finally, there is no 

evidence to support Peterson's claim that he was not aware of 

the possible penalty for mitigated deliberate homicide. The 

record shows that he was fully interrogated as to his 

understanding of his plea and that he entered the plea 

voluntarily and without mistake. 

Affirmed. 
We Concur: 

J' ', r 

pin- sX/,&.c-, 

Justice4.'&!LG$&4 Chief Justice &?