Title: STATE v HINTZ
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 83-125
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 4, 1983

NO. 83-125 I N T H E SUPREPIE C O U R T O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1383 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . H A R V E Y HINTZ and K E N N E T H SCHAFER, Defendants and. Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r the Countv of S i l v e r Bow Honorable Mark Sullivan, Judqe presidina. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Harvey Hintz, Pro Se, Deer Lodoe, Montana Kenneth Schafer, Pro Se, Deer Lodse, Montana For Respondent : EIon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert McCarthy, County Attorney, Butte, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s - June 10, i98j Decided- August 4 , 1 9 5 3 Filed: Abi; 4 1983 Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s is an appeal p r o se from an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g a p p e l l a n t s 1 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 e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l District, County of S i l v e r Bow. On November 28, 1974, Raymond J o s e p h Merrick was s h o t and k i l l e d d u r i n g a robbery of t h e Community Gas S t a t i o n , l o c a t e d on F r o n t and Main S t r e e t i n B u t t e , Montana. The a p p e l l a n t s were a r r e s t e d on t h e same day and each charged w i t h one count of d e l i - b e r a t e homicide and one count of robbery t o which they pled "not g u i l t y . " Bond was set i n t h e amount of $75,000 f o r each defen- d a n t . Defendants could not p o s t bond and both were h e l d i n t h e S i l v e r Bow County j a i l f o r a p e r i o d of approximately one y e a r . During t h a t year p s y c h i a t r i c and p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n s were made of t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l . A r r e s t e d w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t s was one Mary J e a n Munson who p l e d not g u i l t y and was l a t e r t r e a t e d a s a s e p a r a t e d e f e n d a n t and p l e a bargained w i t h t h e S t a t e . On December 1 3 , t h e day s e t f o r a p l e a , Kenny S c h a f e r and Mary J e a n Munson appeared w i t h counsel M. P. S u l l i v a n , and Hintz appeared w i t h o u t counsel. On December 1 7 , Hintz appeared, repre- s e n t e d by counsel S u l l i v a n , and made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n . I n l a t e J a n u a r y , a change of counsel occurred and H i n t z o b t a i n e d , by appointment, Michael McKeon of Anaconda t o a c t a s c o u n s e l . S c h a f e r continued t o be r e p r e s e n t e d by M. P. S u l l i v a n and J. J. P a r k e r . On J a n u a r y 28, p l e a s of not g u i l t y were e n t e r e d t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . On March 29, M. P. S u l l i v a n withdrew a s counsel f o r S c h a f e r and R. M. McCarthy was appointed a s S c h a f e r l s counsel. On t h e following day, James E. P u r c e l l was a p p o i n t e d co-counsel f o r S c h a f e r and t h e t r i a l d a t e was s e t f o r A p r i l 1 5 , 1975. During t h e n e x t s e v e r a l months a number of e x t e n s i o n s were g r a n t e d and c o n t i n u a n c e s were allowed f o r purpose of mental examinations. On J u n e 4 , 1975, t h e Honorable Arnold O l s e n , having been d i s q u a l i f i e d , c a l l e d i n t h e Honorable James D . Freebourn t o handle a l l f u r t h e r m a t t e r s . On September 29, 1975, t r i a l was set f o r Tuesday, November 4 , 1975, and t h e r e a f t e r a number of defense motions were f i l e d . On November 1 2 , 1975, t h e two d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d p l e a s of g u i l t y t o t h e charge of d e l i - b e r a t e homicide. The Honorable James Freebourn immediately sen- tenced each defendant t o 100 y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . A t t h e t i m e of s e n t e n c i n g no pre-sentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t s were ordered nor made. Seven y e a r s l a t e r , on September 20, 1982, t h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a p r o s e 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 i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of S i l v e r Bow County, a l l e g i n g t h a t " i n l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t no pre-sentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t was made and no reasons were a r t i c u l a t e d f o r t h e l e n g t h y s e n t e n c e s , it is p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge d i d not have s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r - mation upon which t o base a s e n t e n c e . . . . " A f t e r t h e S t a t e f i l e d its response, t h e Honorable M. P. S u l l i v a n , D i s t r i c t J u d g e , denied t h e d e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . T h e r e a f t e r t h e y f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , which was a l s o d e n i e d . T h i s pro s e appeal follows. The a p p e l l a n t s a l l e g e t h a t s e r i o u s e r r o r was committed i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l i n g t o p r o p e r l y i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c a s e p r i o r t o imposing a s e n t e n c e . The p e t i t i o n e r s a l l e g e t h a t t h e c o u r t r e c o r d s c o n t a i n no s t a t e m e n t s from e i t h e r of them i n which t h e D i s t r i c t Court could have known t h a t t h e s h o o t i n g was an a c c i d e n t . They argue t h a t i f t h e D i s t r i c t Court had taken t h e time t o read t h e f i l e s , they would have learned t h a t one w i t n e s s t o t h e i n c i d e n t who had been o r i g i - n a l l y charged a s a d e f e n d a n t , Mary Munson, had signed a s t a t e m e n t i n which she t o l d t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e t h a t t h e shooting was a c c i d e n t a l . They argue t h a t had t h e District Court i n q u i r e d from them when a c c e p t i n g t h e change of p l e a s a s t o what a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d a t t h e time of t h e robbery, t h e t r u t h would have been known and, i n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t could have obtained t h a t i n f o r - mation i n a pre-sentence r e p o r t had it been f u r n i s h e d t o t h e c o u r t . They a l l e g e t h a t during t h e course of t h e robbery they s h o t t h e a t t e n d a n t Ray Merrick a c c i d e n t a l l y , when t h e deceased, Merrick, while s t a n d i n g on an e l e v a t e d p l a t f o r m b e s i d e t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r , s l i p p e d and f e l l a g a i n s t p e t i t i o n e r S c h a f e r 's arm t h a t was holding t h e gun. They argue t h a t t h i s caused t h e weapon t o a c c i d e n t a l l y d i s c h a r g e , s t r i k i n g t h e deceased under h i s o u t s t r e t c h e d arm under t h e a r m p i t causing immediate d e a t h . P e t i t i o n e r s argue t h e District Court d i d not f o l l o w t h e a p p l i - c a b l e s t a t u t e s a t t h e time of t h e i r s e n t e n c i n g . S e c t i o n s 95-2201, 2202, 2203, RCM, 1947. The c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e is whether t h e District Court committed e r r o r by n o t c a l l i n g i n a n o t h e r judge t o h e a r t h e case a f t e r having been involved i n t h e case a s defense counsel. The s t a t u - t e s of Montana r e q u i r e t h a t under c e r t a i n circumstances t h e judge must be d i s q u a l i f i e d and p r o v i d e s f o r t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n of judges under t h i s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t a t u t e . S e c t i o n 3-1-802, MCA, pro- v i d e s f o r t h e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of judges- The p r e s i d i n g judge i n t h e p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f proceedings should have d i s q u a l i f i e d himself p u r s u a n t t o t h e above p r o v i s i o n s and c a l l e d i n another judge. I n view of t h e f a c t t h a t it was e r r o r on h i s p a r t not t o do s o , t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court denying p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f is vacated and t h e cause is remanded t o t h e District Court f o r a p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n hearing b e f o r e a n o t h e r District Judge. We concur: pA4&&L$w4q Chief J u s t l c e