Title: STATE v GATES
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-048
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 1982

N o . 82-48 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F NONTANA 1982 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- JAY LEE GATES, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: 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 Missoula, The Honorable Douglas G. Harkin, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Ferguson & Mitchell; Colleen M. Dowdall, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, &Iontana Robert L. Descha~nps, County Attorney, Missoula, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : May 20, 1982 Decided: J u l y 15, 1982 F i l e d : dU- L 5 198% Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I, Haswell 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 t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of h i s pro s e motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a . W e a f f i r m . On December 3 0 , 198G1, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d by information with f o r g e r y , a f e l o n y , He pleaded n o t g u i l t y on January 7 , 1981. O n February 25, 1981, a h e a r i n g was held on d e f e n d a n t ' s pro s e motion t o change h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y . A f t e r e x t e n s i v e i n t e r r o g a t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court accepted d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t y p l e a and on A p r i l 8, 1981, sentenced him t o twenty y e a r s a t t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . Defendant was d e s i g n a t e d a dangerous o f f e n d e r . Also a t t h e A p r i l 8 h e a r i n g , d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y requested t h a t defendant be allowed t o change h i s p l e a t o n o t g u i l t y by reason of i n s a n i t y , which was d e n i e d , and t h e r e a f t e r a n o t i c e of appeal was f i l e d . While t h e addi- t i o n a l t r a n s c r i p t s were being p r e p a r e d , defendant f i l e d a pro s e motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a . When t h e D i s t r i c t Court s e t t h i s motion f o r h e a r i n g , t h e n o t i c e of appeal was withdrawn. A f t e r a h e a r i n g on September 28, 1981, defen- d a n t ' s motion was d e n i e d , and he a p p e a l s . One i s s u e is p r e s e n t e d f o r our c o n s i d e r a t i o n : Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse its d i s c r e t i o n i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a ? Both p a r t i e s c i t e S t a t e v. H u t t i n g e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . - , 595 P.2d 363, 36 St.Rep. 945, a s s e t t i n g t h e s t a n d a r d s by which t o judge d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e . I n H u t t i n g e r w e s e t o u t t h e f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d when reviewing an attempted withdrawal of a g u i l t y p l e a : "The t h r e e f a c t o r s of which we speak a r e (1) t h e adequacy of t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n by t h e D i s - t r i c t Court of t h e defendant a t t h e e n t r y of t h e g u i l t y p l e a a s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s under- s t a n d i n g of t h e consequences of h i s p l e a , ( 2 ) t h e p r o m p t n e s s w i t h which t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t s t o withdraw t h e p r i o r p l e a , and ( 3 ) t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a was a p p a r e n t l y t h e r e s u l t of a p l e a b a r g a i n i n which t h e g u i l t y p l e a was g i v e n i n exchange f o r d i s m i s s a l of another charge . . ." Mont. a t , 595 P.2d a t 366, 36 St.Rep. a t 947. Both s i d e s a g r e e t h a t t h e second and t h i r d f a c t o r s a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e , i . e . , t h e motion t o withdraw t h e g u i l t y p l e a was made i n a t i m e l y f a s h i o n and t h e r e was no p l e a bargain i n t h i s case. T h i s b r i n g s us t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e f i r s t f a c t o r - - t h e adequacy of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s i n t e r r o g a t i o n a t t h e time p l e a was e n t e r e d . I n t h i s r e g a r d a p p e l l a n t p o i n t s o u t t h a t d e f e n d a n t had n o t d i s c u s s e d t h e change of h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y and t h a t t h e r e was some l a c k of communication and r a p p o r t between d e f e n d a n t and h i s a t t o r n e y a t t h a t time. Appellant a r g u e s t h a t from t h e s e f a c t s it can be presumed t h a t defendant d i d n o t f u l l y understand t h e consequences of h i s g u i l t y p l e a . Appellant a l s o contends t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s testimony a t t h e hearing on t h e motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a i n d i - c a t e d he was e n t e r i n g t h e p l e a f o r reasons o t h e r than t h e f a c t t h a t he was g u i l t y . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he f e l t he had been i n t h e Missoula County j a i l t o o long and t h a t he heard v o i c e s t e l l i n g him t h a t pleading g u i l t y was t h e o n l y way t o y e t o u t of t h e r e . F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court knew t h a t d e f e n d a n t had been i n s e v e r a l mental i n s t i t u t i o n s should have i n f l u e n c e d t h e judge t o a l l o w t h e withdrawal of t h e g u i l t y p l e a . The S t a t e r e f e r s u s t o language i n Muttinger wherein w e quoted from S t a t e v. Lewis ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 474, 485, 582 P.2d 346, 352, a s f o l l o w s : ". . . when i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g procedure, t h e D i s t r i c t Court c a r e f u l l y , a s h e r e , examines t h e defendant, f i n d s him t o be competent, and d e t e r m i n e s from him t h a t h i s p l e a of g u i l t y is v o l u n t a r y , he understands t h e charge and h i s p o s s i b l e punishment, he is n o t a c t i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e of d r u g s o r a l c o h o l , he a d m i t s h i s counsel is competent and he h a s been well a d v i s e d , and he d e c l a r e s i n open c o u r t t h e f a c t s upon which h i s g u i l t is based, then a p l e a of g u i l t y accepted by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on t h e b a s i s of t h a t examina- t i o n w i l l be upheld . . .I1 The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court complied with t h e above s t a n d a r d and even went beyond t h a t i n ques- t i o n i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t , and t h e S t a t e p o i n t s t o t h e following f a c t o r s . The D i s t r i c t Court c a r e f u l l y examined t h e d e f e n d a n t and determined t h a t defendant was competent and t h a t t h e p l e a of g u i l t y was being v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d . Defendant was f u l l y advised of t h e charge and p o s s i b l e punishment and was n o t under t h e i n f l u e n c e of drugs o r a l c o h o l . With regard t o t h e element i n Lewis regarding t h e competency of c o u n s e l , t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e l a c k of communication d i d n o t deny d e f e n d a n t e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel because defendant had p r e v i o u s l y been f u l l y a d v i s e d on t h e m e r i t s of t h e c a s e and t h e problems between d e f e n d a n t and h i s counsel were only p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s . F i n a l l y , t h e S t a t e contends t h a t defendant s t a t e d t h e f a c t s i n open c o u r t about how he had forged t h e checks. Both p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e d e n i a l of a motion t o withdraw a g u i l t y p l e a r e s t s i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l , a b s e n t t h e showing of abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . H u t t i n g e r , supra; S t a t e ex r e l . Gladue v. Eighth J u d i c i a l District ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 175 Mont. 509, 575 P.2d 65. W e f i n d t h a t t h e r e was no abuse of d i s - c r e t i o n h e r e . A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e h e a r i n g where d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d h i s g u i l t y p l e a , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d d e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g what had o c c u r r e d a t t h a t h e a r i n g . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e e l e m e n t s r e q u i r e d b y L e w i s , s u p r a , t h e c o u r t a d v i s e d him of h i s r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , t o be c o n f r o n t e d w i t h w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t him, and t h a t h e had t h e r i g h t n o t t o i n c r i m i n a t e h i m s e l f . D e f e n d a n t s t a t e d he was i n p o s s e s s i o n of a l l h i s f a c u l t i e s ( a n d i t a p p e a r e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t he was) and t h a t t h e f a c t he was t i r e d of b e i n g i n t h e M i s s o u l a County j a i l had n o t i n f l u e n c e d h i s d e c i s i o n t o p l e a d g u i l t y . Moreover, d e f e n d a n t s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e a s o n h e was p l e a d i n g g u i l t y was b e c a u s e he had committed t h e c r i ~ n e , which he knew t o be an u n l a w f u l a c t . D e f e n d a n t acknowledged t h e r e was no p l e a b a r g a i n i n t h e c a s e and t h a t t h e judge c o u l d impose a maximum s e n t e n c e of t w e n t y y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n f o r t h e c r i m e . W e h o l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e t i m e of e n t e r i n g t h e g u i l t y p l e a was a d e q u a t e i n t h i s c a s e , s a t i s f y i n g t h e f i r s t e l e m e n t o f t h e I i u t t i n g e r t e s t , s u p r a . S i n c e b o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e two o t h e r f a c t o r s a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s c a s e , w e f i n d t h a t t h e District C o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e its d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a , G l a d u e , s u p r a . A f f i r m e d . 2 4 4 $1 %4, C h i e f J u s t i c e We concur: