No. 13159 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1976

THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vs

# - ROBERT F, SATTLER, Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Third Judicial District, Honorable Robert J. Boyd, Judge presiding, Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John Prater, Terry, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,

Montana Joseph Connors, County Attorney, Anaconda, Montana Argument submitted on briefs.

. -A 3) i;{ , A />, Filed: Submitted: April 21, 1976 Decided:

# mfL3

## @;&Mr. 

### Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This 

### is an appeal from the refusal of the district court Deer Lodge County toallow a convicted felon towithdraw his plea of guilty. The facts arenot in dispute. Robert F. Sattlerand his wife were arrested by the authorities of Deer Lodge County and charged with thecrime of aggravated burglary on or about February 20, 1975. Tim W. 

### Reardon, Deer Lodge County Public Defender, contacted the couple inthe county jail atAnaconda on February 21, 1975. He was informed that Lynn Sattler, thewife, was pregnant and shewas having some difficulties injail due toher pregnancy. Defense counsel found thatbail for $13,000 for each person had been setand neither could make bail. Thereafter, defense counsel contacted the county attorney's office and arrangements were made for the couple towaive preliminary hearing and Lynn Sattlerwas released
on her own recognizance. On that same date, February 21, another felony ch.argewas filed in the adjacent county of SilverBow charging the couple with the crime of armed robbery of 

### Fairmont Hot Springs, a resort situatedbetween Butte and Anaconda, Montana. Sattler entered a plea of not guilty tothat charge on March 

### 5, 1975. During this period, Reardon informed Sattler therewould be a change of defense counsel under the Defender Project sometime inMarch and on March 17, 1975, Mr. John Praterwas appointed Public Defender for t-he thirdjudicial district and assumed the defense of the instant case. Reardon agreed to assist 

### Prater and discussed allthe details of the casewith him. Counsel discussed the possibility of plea bargaining with the county attorney's office at

### the request of defendant Sattler, and pursuant thereto he changed his not guiltyplea toguiltyand was sentenced to

### 20 years inthe stateprison.4s ~J~TL 

### ~i the ~l.tfd bargain Lynn Sattler was to 2ncei lea aL-guilty (she did so on !-fay 17, and thereafter received an 

### 3 year suspended sentence) and no charges would be prosecuted by $:he authorities of Silver Bow County on the armed robbery. Therealter on the same day of defendant's plea, the evidence on the burglary charge was returned to its owner. On April 3, defendant escaped from the county jail. He
was Later apprehended and plead guilty to an escape charge. On May 14, 1975, defendant through a new counsel, moved ::he ,:ourt towithdraw his guiltyplea. His motion was denied. The sole issue iswhether or not under the facts the disrricc ~ourt erred inrefusing toallow defendant towithdraw his plea. This Court cannot imagine a stronger fact situation in suppdrt of a district court's decision tonot allow a withdrawal
+J,: 

### a guilty plea. For two months defendant through competent ~ounsel dealt with and received every consideration the authorities 

### ~i two counties inwhich he 

### is alleged tohave committed serious ieionies, could give. Hiswife, also charged with the felonies, 3pent but one day injail, v7as allowed to go free on her own recognizance and ultimately received 

### a suspended sentence. Now 'zhdz the evidence of hisburglary has been returned to 

### its rightful \mnerand nay no longer be available for use at trial, defendant ,qants to play games with the court. In State v. Griffin, Mont

# . , 535 P.2d 498, 504, 

### 32 St.:<ep. 446, 455, the Court stated:

II .I- Ji -'. db The trialjudge has complete discretion in this matter, section 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947 Ji

# * ;k." 5ee 3lso. itatev. Scalise, 131Mont. 238, 309 P.2d 1010; State

v. ?elke, 143Xont. 262, 389 P.2d 164. Here, defendant is trying to enjoy allof the benefits 

### i ,Lea bargaining arrangement without complying with it. In ;fate v. Nance, 120Mont. 152, 166, 184 P.2d 

### 554, the Court said:"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.