No. 13159 

IN THE 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 : mf L 3 @;& 
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 to allow a convicted felon to withdraw his plea 

of guilty. 

The facts are not in dispute. Robert F. Sattler and his 

wife were arrested by the authorities of Deer Lodge County and 

charged with the crime of aggravated burglary on or about February 

20, 1975. Tim W. Reardon, Deer Lodge County Public Defender, 

contacted the couple in the county jail at Anaconda on February 21, 

1975. He was informed that Lynn Sattler, the wife, was pregnant and 

she was having some difficulties in jail due to her pregnancy. 

Defense counsel found that bail for $13,000 for each person had been 

set and neither could make bail. Thereafter, defense counsel contacted 

the county attorney's office and arrangements were made for the 

couple to waive preliminary hearing and Lynn Sattler was released 

on her own recognizance. 

On that same date, February 21, another felony ch.arge was 

filed in the adjacent county of Silver Bow charging the couple with 

the crime of armed robbery of Fairmont Hot Springs, a resort 

situated between Butte and Anaconda, Montana. Sattler entered a 

plea of not guilty to that charge on March 5, 1975. 

During this period, Reardon informed Sattler there would 

be a change of defense counsel under the Defender Project sometime 

in March and on March 17, 1975, Mr. John Prater was appointed 

Public Defender for t-he third judicial district and assumed the 

defense of the instant case. Reardon agreed to assist Prater and 

discussed all the details of the case with 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 guilty plea to guilty and was sentenced to 20 years in the 

state prison. 
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 to withdraw his guilty plea. His motion was denied. 

The sole issue is whether or not under the facts the disrricc ~ourt erred in refusing to allow defendant to withdraw his plea. 

This Court cannot imagine a stronger fact situation in 

suppdrt of a district court's decision to not 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 in which he is alleged to have committed serious 

ieionies, could give. His wife, also charged with the felonies, 

3pent but one day in jail, v7as allowed to go free on her own 

recognizance and ultimately received a suspended sentence. Now 

'zhdz the evidence of his burglary has been returned to its rightful 

\mner and 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: 

I I .I- Ji -'. db The trial judge has complete discretion in 

this matter, section 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947 Ji * ;k." 

5ee 3lso. itate v. Scalise, 131 Mont. 238, 309 P.2d 1010; State 

v. ?elke, 143 Xont. 262, 389 P.2d 164. 

Here, defendant is trying to enjoy all of the benefits 

i ,Lea bargaining arrangement without complying with it. In 

;fate v. Nance, 120 Mont. 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.