Title: STATE v STEFFANS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-247
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 24, 1981

No. 81-247 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS. L A R R Y STEFFANS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Musselshell Honorable % a + ~ 4 - e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . &,&!A- O K L/d/yL?idr.. . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Kathryn R. B a y l i s , Roundup, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John P r a t t , County Attorney, Roundup, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : September 17, 1981 Decided: 2 4 - Clerk M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant a p p e a l s from a judgment revoking h i s p r o b a t i o n and d e f e r r a l of s e n t e n c e and s e n t e n c i n g him t o two y e a r s i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n f o r h i s o r i g i n a l crime. On June 1 3 , 1979, d e f e n d a n t L a r r y S t e f f a n s pled g u i l t y to t h e crime of f o r g e r y . On t h e same day an o r d e r was e n t e r e d d e f e r r i n g i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e and p l a c i n g d e f e n d a n t on proba- t i o n under t h e s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e S t a t e Board of P a r o l e and Pardons. On November 1 3 , 1979, h i s p r o b a t i o n and p a r o l e o f f i c e r f i l e d a r e p o r t of v i o l a t i o n with t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t which s t a t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had v i o l a t e d t h e terms of h i s p r o b a t i o n and s t a t e and f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s by having i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n s e v e r a l r i f l e s a f t e r having been c o n v i c t e d of a f e l o n y . On J a n u a r y 10 , 1980 , a w r i t t e n enumeration of t h e con- d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n and p a r o l e were f u r n i s h e d d e f e n d a n t who s i g n e d a w r i t t e n acknowledgement of r e c e i p t . Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e c o n d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n and p a r o l e provided t h a t he was n o t to d r i n k any i n t o x i c a n t s nor to f r e q u e n t any p l a c e where i n t o x i - c a n t s are t h e c h i e f i t e m o f sale; t h a t he would comply w i t h a l l s t a t e and f e d e r a l l a w s and conduct himself as a good c i t i z e n ; and t h a t he would a t t e n d f a m i l y and m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l i n g a t t h e mental h e a l t h c e n t e r i n Roundup, Montana. Following an a l l e g e d a t t e m p t by t h e d e f e n d a n t t o burn up h i s mother-in-law's automobile and an a l l e g e d a s s a u l t upon h e r , t h e county a t t o r n e y of M u s s e l s h e l l County f i l e d an af f i d a v i t and p e t i t i o n with t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court ( 1) s p e c i f y i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r s of d e f e n d a n t ' s conduct i n regard t o t h e a s s a u l t and attempted b u r n i n g of t h e a u t o m o b i l e , ( 2 ) r e c i t i n g t h a t t h i s w a s a v i o l a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n , and ( 3 ) r e q u e s t i n g a h e a r i n g t o show c a u s e why d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n should n o t be revoked and d e f e n d a n t be sentenced to a term i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n . On t h e same d a t e t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e d an o r d e r to show cause and d i r e c t e d t h a t a copy of its o r d e r and t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s a f f i d a v i t be served on d e f e n d a n t . The following day a c o u r t a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y was named f o r d e f e n d a n t . On J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r f i l e d a v i o l a t i o n r e p o r t w i t h t h e c o u r t and f u r n i s h e d two c o p i e s to t h e county a t t o r n e y . N e i t h e r d e f e n d a n t nor h i s counsel was served w i t h a copy of t h i s r e p o r t . T h i s r e p o r t covered t h e a l l e g e d a t t e m p t to burn h i s mother-in-law' s automobile, d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d a s s a u l t on h i s mother-in-law, and d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e to keep most of h i s appointments f o r f a m i l y and marriage c o u n s e l i n g a t t h e Mental H e a l t h Centers i n Roundup and B i l l i n g s . The r e p o r t c o n t a i n e d a summary of p r o b a t i o n a d j ustment, s t a t i n g : " It would a p p e a r t h a t t h e S u b j e c t does not intend t o obey t h e Court Order o r Rules of Probation." A recommendation was included t h a t d e f e n d a n t be r e t u r n e d t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t f o r r e v o c a t i o n of t h e d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e . On February 3 , 1981, a r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g was held b e f o r e t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court of M u s s e l s h e l l County s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y . The c o u r t t h e r e a f t e r e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law t h a t d e f e n d a n t v i o l a t e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s of h i s p r o b a t i o n by a s s a u l t i n g h i s mother-in-law and by f r e q u e n t i n g c e r t a i n b a r s i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, where i n t o x i c a n t s a r e t h e c h i e f i t e m of sale. T h e r e a f t e r d e f e n d a n t ' s d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e on t h e f o r g e r y c o n v i c t i o n was revoked, d e f e n d a n t was sentenced to two y e a r s imprisonment i n t h e S t a t e p r i s o n w i t h c r e d i t f o r t i m e s e r v e d i n j a i l p r i o r to s e n t e n c i n g , and he was d e s i g n a t e d a non- dangerous of f e n d e r . Defendant a p p e a l s contending t h e District Court committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by a d m i t t i n g evidence of a l l e g e d p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n s of which d e f e n s e counsel was n o t n o t i f i e d p r i o r to t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t f a i l u r e to n o t i f y d e f e n d a n t or h i s counsel of a l l e g e d p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n s contained i n t h e v i o l a t i o n r e p o r t of t h e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r which were n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s af f i d a v i t and p e t i t i o n , v i z . t h e p o s s e s s i o n of f i r e a r m s , t h e f a i l u r e to keep f a m i l y and m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l i n g appointments and t h e f r e q u e n t i n g of b a r s , d e p r i v e d d e f e n d a n t of t h e r i g h t to t h e informed a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l . W e hold t h a t t h e admission i n e v i d e n c e of p r o b a t i o n v i o l a - t i o n s n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s a f f i d a v i t and p e t i - t i o n to revoke p r o b a t i o n was e r r o r , b u t t h a t such error d i d n o t a f f e c t h i s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s and must be d i s r e g a r d e d under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s case. Defendant was e n t i t l e d t o p r i o r n o t i c e of t h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s which formed t h e b a s i s of t h e S t a t e ' s p e t i t i o n to r e v o k e h i s p r o b a t i o n and d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e . Gagnon V . S c a r p e l l i ( 1 9 7 3 ) r 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656. The S t a t e concedes t h i s error. However, t h e n o t i c e d e f e c t concerning t h e p o s s e s s i o n of f i r e a r m s , t h e f a i l u r e to keep f a m i l y and m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l i n g a p p o i n t m e n t s , and t h e f r e q u e n t i n g of b a r s does not c o n s t i t u t e g r o u n d s f o r r e v e r s a l i n t h i s case. S e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA, pro- v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "Types - o f errors n o t i c e d on a p p e a l . Any error, - d e f e c t , i r r e s u l a r i t y , or v a r i a n c e which does n o t a f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l ; i g h t s s h a l l be d i s r e g a r d e d I1 . . . Here t h e c o u r t made no f i n d i n g s on d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d p o s s e s s i o n o f f i r e a r m s or h i s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e to keep f a m i l y or m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l i n g appointments. N o r d i d t h e c o u r t base t h e r e v o c a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e on e i t h e r . The c o u r t d i d , however, f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t v i o l a t e d t h e r u l e s of p r o b a t i o n by f r e q u e n t i n g b a r s where i n t o x i c a n t s were t h e c h i e f i t e m of s a l e . The c o u r t based t h e r e v o c a t i o n i n p a r t on t h i s i t e m . The S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d no e v i d e n c e on t h i s a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n . The e n t i r e e v i d e n c e on t h i s matter came from t h e d e f e n d a n t and h i s own w i t n e s s e s . Defendant introduced t h i s e v i - dence to prove an a l i b i , v i z . t h a t he could n o t have a s s a u l t e d h i s mother-in-law because a t t h e t i m e of t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t i n Roundup he was p r e s e n t a t t h e Seventeen Bar, t h e Broken Drum B a r , t h e Tumbleweed Bar, and t h e S i l v e r Dollar B a r , none of which are l o c a t e d i n Roundup. Defendant cannot p r e d i c a t e r e v e r s i b l e error on t e s t i m o n y t h a t he himself i n t r o d u c e d . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t e v i d e n c e of o t h e r v i o l a t i o n s of pro- b a t i o n had a d e t r i m e n t a l impact on h i s c r e d i b i l i t y . P r e j u d i c e c a n n o t be presumed b u t must appear from t h e d e n i a l of a substan- t i a l r i g h t from which t h e law i m p l i e s p r e j u d i c e . S t a t e v. Bradford ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 5 Mont. 545, 575 P.2d 83. D e f e n d a n t ' s asser- t i o n t h a t t h e admission of e v i d e n c e of o t h e r p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n s had a d e t r i m e n t a l impact on h i s c r e d i b i l i t y is pure f a n t a s y . The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t i f anything a f f e c t e d h i s c r e d i b i l i t y it was h i s own t e s t i m o n y and t h a t of h i s a l i b i w i t n e s s e s t h a t he was n o t p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e and p l a c e of t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t on h i s mother-in-law i n t h e f a c e of p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by h e r t h a t it was he who a s s a u l t e d h e r . The d i s t r i c t judge is presumed to b e a b l e to p r o p e r l y e v a l u a t e evidence and d e t e r m i n e t h e c r e d i b i - l i t y of w i t n e s s e s w i t h o u t r e g a r d to incompetent e v i d e n c e . S t a t e v . P a l e n ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 119 Mont. 600, 178 P.2d 862. Here t h e d i s t r i c t judge demonstrated t h i s a b i l i t y i n e l i m i n a t i n g from c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s n o t charged by t h e county a t t o r n e y i n h i s a f f i d a v i t and p e t i t i o n e x c e p t t h e f r e q u e n t i n g of b a r s which d e f e n d a n t himself i n t r o d u c e d . The record d i s c l o s e s nothing to t h e c o n t r a r y . Accordingly, d e f e n d a n t h a s f a i l e d to show any p r e j u d i c e a f f e c t i n g any s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t of h i s . Af f irmed . Chief ~ u s t i c e