Title: STATE v BOLT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-457
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 2, 1983

NO. 82-457 I i V THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F f4O"LaTrlTJA 1983 STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- SCOTT BOLT, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal f r o n : D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth 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 o f Lake, The Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Ap2ellant: C h r i s t i a n , IlcCurdy G Tdold; Donald I<. Peterson, Polson, Nontana For Resgondent : !dike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Jlontana John F r e d e r i c k , County Attorney, Polson, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : February 10, 1.983 Decided: June 2 , 1983 - I _ Clerk Hr. J u s t i c e Frea J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant B o l t a p p e a l s from tile o r d e r of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t Court, Lake County, imposing a s e n t e n c e of one year i n j a i l f o r c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s , a inisdemeanor. W e a f f i r m . The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l is whether, under t h e circum- s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t was e n t i t l e d t o a de- 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 under s e c t i o n 45-9-102(5), MCA. That s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s : "A person of t h e age of 21 y e a r s o r under convicted of a f i r s t v i o l a t i o n under t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be presumed t o be e n t i t l e d t o a 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 . " A p p e i i a n t was twenty y e a r s of age a t t h e t i m e he committed t h e d r u g - r e l a t e d misdemeanor o f f e n s e . Less t h a n one gram of h a s h i s h was found i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n d u r i n g a r o u t i n e s e a r c h f o l l o w i n g v i s i t i n g hours a t t h e Swan River Youth F o r e s t Camp, where he was s e r v i n g c o n c u r r e n t f i v e - y e a r s e n t e n c e s f o r two f e l o n i e s committed e a r l i e r i n 1982. On J u l y 13, 1982, a p p e l l a n t was charged by i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h t h e crime of p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s , a misde- meanor, a s s p e c i f i e d i n s e c t i o n 45-9-102(1), MCA. Defense counsel was appointed, and a p p e l l a n t e n t e r e d a p l e a of g u i l t y on J u l y 21, 1982. A p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t d a t e d August 2, 1982, concluded t h a t "under 45-9-102 s u b s e c t i o n ( 5 ) , t h i s defendant is presumed t o be e n t i t l e d t o a d e f e r r e d imposi- t i o n of s e n t e n c e r e g a r d l e s s of t h e two p r i o r f e l o n y convic- t i o n s . I' The D i s t r i c t C o u r t J u d g e i n i t i a l l y f o l l o w e d t h e r e p o r t ' s recommendation 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 t o r a p e r i o d of t h r e e y e a r s , commencing when s u p e r v i s i o n of appellant in prison or on parole ceased. After hearing argument on the county attorney's motion for reconsidera- tion, the court vacated the deferred imposition of sentence on August 4, 1982, and ordered appellant to serve one year imprisonment in the Lake County jail upon his release from the state prison. The court concluded that the presumption of section 45-9-102(5), MCA, was overcome by defendant's prior felony convictions for burglary and criminal mischief. Presumption is defined in Rule 301(b), Mont.R.Evid.: "A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or groups of facts . . ." Presumptions are classified in Rule 301(b), Mont.R.Evid., in pertinent part: "(1) Conclusive presumptions are presump- tions that are specifically declared conclusive by statute . . . "(2) All presumptions, other than conclu- sive presumptions, are disputable pre- sumptions and may be controverted. A disputable presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of evidence contrary to the presumption. Unless the presumption is overcome, the trier of fact must find the assumed fact in accordance with the presumption. " Under the statute and the foregoing definition, defendant was entitled to a presumption of deferred imposition of sentence because he was twenty years old at the commission ot his first offense involving dangerous drugs. However, that presumption in favor of deferred sen- tencing is not conclusive. It is a disputable presumption whlch may be overcome by other evidence. State v. Simtob (1969), 154 Mont. 286, 291, 462 P.2d 873, 876. The parties disagree as to the nature of evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption. Appellant contends t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y language of s e c t i o n 45-9-102(5), MCA, " a f i r s t v i o l a t i o n under t h i s s e c t i o n f n r e s t r i c t s t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t can be c o n s i d e r e d i n r e b u t t i n g t h e presumption t o e v i d e n c e s u r r o u n d i n g t h e crime a t i s s u e o r e v i d e n c e of o t h e r o f f e n s e s i n v o l v i n g dangerous drugs. Respondent a s s e r t s t h a t t h e presumption is t o be weighed a g a i n s t a l l o t h e r e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t t o s e n t e n c i n g , and t h a t t h e presumption remains s u b j e c t t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e d u r e s and c r i t e r i a set f o r t h i n T i t l e 46, Chapter 1 8 , P a r t s 1 and 2, MCA. The presumption i n f a v o r of d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n o f s e n t e n c e f o r young v i o l a t o r s "may be c o n t r o v e r t e d by o t h e r e v i d e n c e , b u t u n l e s s s o c o n t r a d i c t e d t h e p r e s u m p t i o n c o n t r o l s . " Campus v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 157 Mont. 321, 326, 483 P.2d 275, 278, q u o t i n g Simtob, 154 Mont. a t 291, 462 P.2d a t 876. I f t h e t r i a l c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e presumption h a s n o t been overcome, t h e n t h e c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n s e n t e n c i n g a young o f f e n d e r is l i m i t e d by t h e Dangerous Drug Act t o d e f e r r i n g t h e i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e . S t a t e v. D r e w ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 214, 216-17, 490 P.2d 230, 232. The q u e s t i o n h e r e is whether t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n concluding t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y presumption was overcome by e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e young v i o l a t o r had a f e l o n y r e c o r d and was i n c a r c e r a t e d a t t h e t i m e he engaged i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t d r u g - r e l a t e d c r irninal a c t i v i t y . By e n a c t i n g s e c t i o n 45-9-102(5), MCA [ f o r m e r l y s e c t i o n 54-133(5), R.C.M. 19471 t h e L e g i s l a t u r e " i n t e n d e d t o g i v e b e n e f i t t o young v i o l a t o r s s o t h a t t h e i r f u t u r e s would n o t be d e s t r o y e d by a f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n . " Simtob, 154 Mont. a t 294, 462 P.2d a t 877 ( H a r r i s o n , J., d i s s e n t i n g ) . T h i s bene- f i t c a n n o t be r e a l i z e d where t h e v i o l a t o r a l r e a d y h a s a f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n r e c o r d t h a t w i l l overshadow any prospec- t i v e damage t h a t might r e s u l t from a f i r s t d r u g - r e l a t e d c o n v i c t i o n . I n Campus v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 157 Mont. 321, 327, 483 P.2d 275, 279, t h i s Court enumerated f o u r s t a n d a r d s t h a t must be met i n o r d e r t o overcome t h e s t a t u t o r y presumption i n f a v o r of 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 : " F i r s t , w e i n t e r p r e t it t o mean t h a t t h e record i t s e l f must d i s c l o s e t h e e v i d e n c e , a s w e h e l d i n Simtob. Second, t h e e v i - dence may be c o n t a i n e d e i t h e r w i t h i n o r w i t h o u t t h e proof of t h e crime i t s e l f . T h i r d , t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s should be some s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e over and above t h e simple f a c t s of a prima f a c i e c a s e . F i n a l l y , it is c l e a r t h a t t h i s Court w i l l r e q u i r e h e a r i n g s and a record t o d i s c l o s e t h e a g g r a v a t i n g e v i - dence, i f t h e r e be no e x p r e s s v o l u n t a r y waiver a s i n t h i s case." F i r s t , w e i n q u i r e "whether t h e r e c o r d h e r e d i s c l o s e s any f a c t s t o overcome t h e s t a t u t o r y presumption c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Dangerous Drug A c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t is e n t i t l e d t o a 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 . " Simtob, 154 Mont. a t 291, 462 P.2d a t 876. The r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t a p p e l l a n t was a n inmate a t t h e Swan River Youth F o r e s t Camp a t t h e t i m e he engaged i n t h e i l l i c i t drug a c t i v i t y and t h a t h i s p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s r e l a t e d t o two s e p a r a t e i n c i d e n t s of f o r c e d e n t r y and vandalism. N e i t h e r of t h e s e f a c t s was con- t r o v e r t e d . T h i s e v i d e n c e is d i s c l o s e d from t h e r e c o r d and is c o n t a i n e d w i t h o u t proof of t h e crime i t s e l f . Thus, t h e f i r s t two s t a n d a r d s from Campus a r e s a t i s f i e d . The n e x t i n q u i r y is whether t h e s e a g g r a v a t i n g circum- s t a n c e s c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e over and above t h e simple f a c t s of t h e prima f a c i e c a s e . A j u d g e ' s b e l i e f t h a t a d e f e n d a n t l a c k e d candor i n responding t o q u e s t i o n s from t h e t r i a l c o u r t is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o c l a s s i f y it as one of t h o s e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s n e c e s s a r y t o overcome t h e presumption f o r g i v i n g a d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e . S t a t e v. B u r r i s ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 195, 198, 542 P.2d 1223, 1225. Nor a r e a f f i d a v i t s a c c u s i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t of p r i o r d e a l i n g s i n d r u g s a d e q u a t e a g g r a v a t i n g evidence. S t a t e v. Harney ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. 55, 62, 499 P.2d 802, 805-06. Here, u n l i k e i n B u r r i s and Barney, t h e a g g r a v a t i n g e v i d e n c e of d e f e n d a n t ' s i n c a r - c e r a t i o n a t t h e time of t h e o f f e n s e and h i s p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e over and above t h e s i m p l e f a c t s of a prima f a c i e c a s e of p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s . L a s t , t h e a p p e l l a n t had o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e b u t t h e a g g r a v a t i n g e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p a r o l e o f f i c e r ' s p r e - s e n t e n c e r e p o r t a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g and a t t h e h e a r i n g on r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . He f a i l e d t o do S O . A l l four Campus c r i t e r i a have been m e t . W e do n o t hold t h a t t h e r e b u t t i n g e v i d e n c e should be r e s t r i c t e d t o e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o drug a c t i v i t i e s . N e i t h e r t h e s t a t u t o r y language nor t h e c a s e law c o n t a i n s such a r e s t r i c t i o n . T h i s is a c a s e of a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n engaging i n s u b s e q u e n t c r i m i n a l conduct d u r i n g confinement. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o r abuse its d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e s e circum- s t a n c e s w a r r a n t e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e . For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e s e n t e n c e is a f f i r m e d . We concur: '[\J,A-- I 2 . / I Justice