Title: STATE v BROWN
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-007
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 17, 1981

N o . 81-07 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1981 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, GARY BROWN, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from; D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l District, I n and f o r t h e County of G l a c i e r , The Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Charles M , Joslyn, Choteau, Montana For Respondent: EIon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J a m e s C. Nelson, County Attorney, Cut Bank, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : May 1, 1981 Decided : J.w 1 7 Ig8' F i l e d : && 1 7 1 9 t M Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. I n December 1979 defendant Gary Brown was charged i n G l a c i e r County D i s t r i c t Court w i t h t h r e e c o u n t s of f e l o n y t h e f t , a l l e g e d t o have been committed i n Cut Bank, Montana, on v a r i o u s d a t e s i n November and December 1979. Defendant e n t e r e d n o t g u i l t y p l e a s i n J a n u a r y 1980. T h e r e a f t e r , a p r e t r i a l agreement was e n t e r e d i n t o between d e f e n d a n t and t h e S t a t e . Pursuant t o t h e agreement, d e f e n d a n t was t o p l e a d g u i l t y t o each count and t h e S t a t e was t o recommend five-year s e n t e n c e s t o run c o n c u r r e n t l y and t h a t d e f e n d a n t n o t be charged a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r nor t h a t he be d e s i g n a t e d a dangerous o f f e n d e r f o r p a r o l e purposes. The p r e t r i a l agreement was s i g n e d and f i l e d w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t Court on February 6 , 1980. On February 21, 1980, d e f e n d a n t changed h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y on each count. The c o u r t took n o t i c e of t h e p r e t r i a l a g r e e m e n t a n d , a f t e r d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t was knowingly and v o l u n t a r i l y changing h i s p l e a , accepted t h e p l e a and ordered a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . On March 5, 1980, d e f e n d a n t appeared f o r s e n t e n c i n g . Following h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r t sentenced d e f e n d a n t t o seven y e a r s and d e s i g n a t e d him a nondangerous o f f e n d e r . I n s e n t e n c i n g d e f e n d a n t , t h e c o u r t acknowledged t h e p r e t r i a l agreement b u t i n c r e a s e d t h e recommended s e n t e n c e because of d e f e n d a n t ' s p a s t h i s t o r y of p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n s , h i s i n a b i l i t y t o l e a r n from p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h t h e law, and h i s u n t r u t h f u l n e s s w i t h t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t o r . Immediately f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c i n g , d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f claiming t h a t t h e S t a t e breached t h e p r e t r i a l agreement and t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e of seven y e a r s on each count was improper. The p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d , and defendant now a p p e a l s . The following i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r our review: 1. Whether t h e S t a t e b r e a c h e d t h e p r e t r i a l agreement; and 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y sentenced d e f e n d a n t on each of t h e t h r e e c o u n t s of f e l o n y t h e f t . I t is a widely-recognized p r i n c i p l e t h a t when a g u i l t y p l e a r e s t s i n any s i g n i f i c a n t d e g r e e on a promise o r agreement of t h e p r o s e c u t o r , s o t h a t it can be s a i d t o be p a r t of t h e inducement o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , such promise must be f u l f i l l e d . See S a n t o b e l l o v. N e w York ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427. Here t h e p r e t r i a l agreement r e q u i r e d t h e S t a t e , i n exchange f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t y p l e a , t o recommend a f i v e - year s e n t e n c e on each count t o run c o n c u r r e n t l y . Defendant m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h i s recommendation was n o t made. Upon reviewing t h e r e c o r d , w e must d i s a g r e e . The a c t u a l agreement, which i n c l u d e d a p r o v i s i o n concerning t h e S t a t e ' s recommended s e n t e n c e , was f i l e d w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t Court n e a r l y a month b e f o r e t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g . The D i s t r i c t Court judge throughout t h e proceeding acknowledged t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h i s agreement and d u r i n g i m p o s i t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e made p a r t i c u l a r mention of t h e S t a t e ' s recommendation: I1Q . Mr. Brown, you a r e a w a r e o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r a p l e a h e r e . A. Y e s . "Q. The p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h r e e counts? A. Yes. "Q. I n exchange f o r a recommendation of t h e County A t t o r n e y t o t h e Court of f i v e y e a r s i n t h e S t a t e p r i s o n ? A. Yes." W e a g r e e with defendant t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y " v o i c e " t h e recommendation o f a f i v e - y e a r s e n t e n c e b u t conclude t h a t such a c t i o n was n o t n e c e s s a r y i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . I t is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e S t a t e f u l l y a p p r i s e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e p r e t r i a l agreement and t h a t t h e c o u r t was a w a r e o f t h e recommended f i v e - y e a r s e n t e n c e throughout t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e s s . The S t a t e ' s o b l i g a t i o n under t h e agreement is t h u s deemed s a t i s f i e d . Defendant n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e breached t h e p r e t r i a l a g r e e m e n t by a d v o c a t i n g t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f a s e n t e n c e g r e a t e r t h a n t h e recommended f i v e y e a r s . W e a g a i n must d i s a g r e e . I n s u p p o r t of h i s argument d e f e n d a n t n o t e s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r , a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , brought o u t t h a t d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o mention t h e f u l l e x t e n t of h i s p r i o r c r i m i n a l record d u r i n g t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . W e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h i s e f f o r t . C e r t a i n l y t h e S t a t e should n o t be f o r c e d t o s t a n d by and a l l o w a d e f e n d a n t t o make r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t o r and t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t which t h e p r o s e c u t o r b e l i e v e s have been f a l s e l y s t a t e d i n an i m p r o p e r a t t e m p t t o b e t t e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n . Such a r e s u l t w i l l n o t be p e r m i t t e d , and t h e f a c t t h a t a p r e t r i a l agreement h a s been signed which r e q u i r e s t h a t a c e r t a i n s e n t e n c e be recommended h a s no b e a r i n g upon t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . Regarding t h e second i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t contends t h a t , under h i s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s , t h e t h r e e c o u n t s of t h e f t w i t h which he was charged c o n s t i t u t e b u t one o f f e n s e i n one t r a n s a c t i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , he could be c o n v i c t e d o n l y once. I n r e j e c t i n g t h i s argument we need o n l y n o t e t h a t d e f e n d a n t , a f t e r being f u l l y advised by c o u n s e l and t h e c o u r t , pleaded g u i l t y t o t h r e e s e p a r a t e c o u n t s of t h e f t a s charged i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . The i n f o r m a t i o n , a s p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e , contends t h e o f f e n s e s a r o s e o u t of t h r e e s e p a r a t e i n c i d e n t s . I f t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t a g r e e w i t h t h i s v e r s i o n o f t h e c h a r g e s o r d i d n o t wish t o f a c e s e n t e n c i n g on a l l t h r e e c o u n t s , he could have gone t o t r i a l on h i s t h e o r y t h a t t h e o f f e n s e s i n f a c t a r o s e o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n . Defendant, however, chose n o t t o do s o and pleaded g u i l t y a s c h a r g e d . W e f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e upon a l l t h r e e c o u n t s . The judgment of c o n v i c t i o n a s e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court is a f f irmed . W e concur: A