Title: STATE v EMMETT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13344
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 13, 1976

No, 13344 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - R O N A L D GENE E M M E T T , Defendant and Appellant, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Seventh Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable L. C, Gulbrandson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Moses, Kampfe, Tolliver and Wright, Billings, Montana D. Frank Kampfe argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Hone Robert L, Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John F. North argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Richard A, Simonton, County Attorney, argued, Glendive, Montana Submitted: October 13, 1976 Decided : DEC 18 Filed : 18 I= M r . Justice Frank'I.Haswel1 delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant Ronald Emmett appeals from an order of the d i s t r i c t court, Dawson County, revoking h i s deferred imposition of sentence and sentencing Emmett t o two and one-half years i n Montana State Prison. O n March 24, 1975 defendant Emmett was charged with felony possession of marijuana i n violation of section 54-133, R.C.M. 1947. That same day he pled guilty and the court ordered imposi- tion of sentence deferred for three years provided defendant complied with a number of conditions during that period. After compliance with the conditions for three years, the charges would be dismissed. O n September 30, 1975 Emmett's probation officer reported t o the county attorney alleged violations of conditions of Emmett's deferred sentence. The county attorney i n turn peti- tioned the court t o revoke the deferral and impose sentence of five years i n prison. Other violations subsequent t o the f i l i n g of t h i s f i r s t petition were alleged prior t o the hearing. Hearing was held December 23, 1975. The court found Emmett violated the terms of h i s deferred sentence, revoked the deferral, and sentenced him t o two and one-half years i n Montana State Prison with credit for t h i r t y days previously served i n the Dawson Cbunty j a i l . The issues are: (1) Did the d i s t r i c t court have authority t o revoke the deferred sentence and impose sentence? (2) Was there sufficient evidence t o find defendant violated the conditions of h i s deferred sentence and t o warrant imposing the two and one-half year prison sentence? Defendant's argument on the f i r s t issue is that the d i s t r i c t court had relinquished its jurisdiction t o the Board of Pardons by i t s order of March 24, 1975, deferring imposition of sentence. Condition 10 of that order reads: "10) The Defendant is placed under the supervision and control of the State Board of Pardons and i s t o abide by t h e i r rules and regulations". Defendant r e l i e s on the language of the l a s t paragraph of section 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947, which reads: "Any judge who has suspended the execution of a sentence or deferred the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment under t h i s section, o r h i s successor, i s authorized thereafter, i n h i s discretion, during - the period of such suspended sentence o r deferred imposition of sentence t o revoke such suspension o r impose sentence and order such person committed, o r may, i n h i s discretion, order the prisoner placed under the jurisdiction of the s t a t e board of pardons a s provided by law, o r retain such jurisdiction with t h i s court. Prior t o the revocation of an order suspending o r deferring the imposition of sentence, the person affected shall be given a hearing." (Emphasis supplied.) The t r i a l judge followed the provisions of section 95- 2206, R.C.M. 1947. H e deferred sentence. Condition 10 of the court's order placed E m m e t t under the supervision of a probation officer, and the rules and regulations of the Board of Pardons. Thereafter the court held a hearing, found Emmett had violated the conditions, and i n its discretion imposed sentence of im- prisonment. Any uncertainty was eliminated by the court's remarks t o defendant when he deferred imposition of sentence t o the effect that i f defendant did not abide by the conditions of deferral, the court would impose a sentence of imprisonment and by the following provision of the court's order of March 24: "IT IS F U R T H E R ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that i f the Defendant f a i l s t o comply with any of the above conditions a bench warrant of a r r e s t w i l l be issued, the Defendant apprehended and the said Defendant w i l l be required t o appear before t h i s Court for further proceedings ." Defendant's argument on the second issue is that there was no credible evidence of a violation of the conditions of the deferred sentence. Additionally, he argues the evidence presented did not warrant the imposition of a prison sentence and he was "violated1' because the parole officer and county attorney believed he had a bad attitude. I n support of its order imposing sentence the court made these findings of fact: "1) The Court hereby finds from the testimony and the admission of the Defendant that while on probation he was i n the Jordan ';Hotel, Lulhaven Bar, Glendive Moose Club and Beer Jug, a l l of which places serve intoxicating liquors. "2) That September 8, 1975, he was present a t the scene of aggravated assault upon police officers and that he joined i n the yelling and encouraged others t o 'do a good job'. "3) The testimony of witnesses and admission of the Defendant indicates that he shouted obscenities o r profanities a t a Police Department dispatcher while incarcerated i n the Dawson County j a i l on April 6, 1975. "4) That Condition #2 of the Court's prior judgment was violated i n that the Defendant failed t o reimburse Dawson County for the costs of h i s j a i l incarceration o r attorney's fees. "5) That the evidence and admission of the Defendant indicates he pleaded guilty t o a charge of reckless driving while on probation, that he was involved i n an accident, and that liquor was found i n h i s vehicle. "6) That the Defendant admitted he forfeited bond for speeding while on probation. "That the admission of the Defendant and the evidence a t the hearing, as s e t forth above, a r e violations of the terms and conditions of the defendant's probation." There is no real conflict as to the underlying facts. Condition 5 of defendant's deferred sentence was that he "not frequent any place where intoxicating liquor or beer is sold." Emmett admitted going into the Jordan Hotel dance hall one night to attend a dance where drinks could be brought in from the bar in another room. He testified he did not have any intoxicants and he had permission from his probation officer. The probation officer testified against Emmett but did not deny this statement. Emmett admitted going into the Lulhaven Bar to tell another man he could come to work for Emmett's employer. Defendant admitted he had been at the Moose Club one night to attend a wedding dance but that he was not drinking. He testified he Went into the Beer Jug on a Sunday afternoon and had a sand- wich and a 7-Up soft drink at the 1unch:counter. Condition 7 was: "The Defendant shall conduct himself in a . law abiding manner and shall not violate any law of the United States or of the State of Montana or the ordinance of any city or town during said term. " At the wed,ding dance at the Moose Club 'an altercation broke out involving several police officers and a number of young people. Subsequently Emmett testified for the defense of two young men charged with assault against the police officers. He admitted being in the crowd and shouting encouragement, but also testified that he prevented another young man from hitting an officer and that he left early. Emmett was required to serve thirty days in jail as a condition of deferment. He admitted that once during that time he shouted obscenities at the female police dispatcher when his meal was a couple of hours late. - 5 - Emmett t e s t i f i e d he received a reckless driving citation when he and a friend saw each other on a s t r e e t and attempted t o pull t h e i r cars alongside each other resulting i n a serious collision. He claimed the empty bottles and liquor found i n h i s car a t that time were probably l e f t from when a friend borrowed h i s car. H e admitted receiving a speeding c i t a t i o n and forfeiting bond on another occasion. Conditions 2 and 3 were "the Defendant pay h i s own costs of incarceration including board a t the r a t e of $3.00 per day" for the t h i r t y days served i n j a i l and that "the Defendant within a reasonable time, reimburse Dawson County for the fees charged by h i s court appointed attorney". H e t e s t i f i e d he consulted h i s court appointed attorney on three occasions concerning t h i s and concluded he had t o pay within the three years of h i s deferred sentence unless he was asked to pay sooner, which he was.not. Defendant argues that his probation officer's negative feelings towards him and h i s views on the marijuana laws a r e the r e a l source of h i s difficulty. H e argues that over the nine month period the probation officer should have admonished him for his v i s i t s t o the bars and should have requested the ordered payments be made t o the county before charging him with violations for these shortcomings. The s t a t e argues the evidence was sufficient t o support the court's finding that Emmett violated the conditions imposed by the court and that although none of these acts singly need lead t o a revocation of the deferred sentence, t h e i r cumulative effect indicates a contempt for the court's order, the rules and regulations of the Board of Pardons, and the laws of the s t a t e of Montana. Although part of the evidence supporting some of the alleged individual violations is questionable, we find there was substantial evidence t o support the d i s t r i c t court's con- clusion that Emmett violated the terms of h i s deferred sentence. Defendant further argues that h i s a c t s do not warrant a sentence of imprisonment i n the Montana State Prison for two and one-half years. However that may be, the sentence i s for conviction of a felony for which the s t a t u t e provides a possible sentence of imprisonment not t o exceed five years. Section 54-133(c), R.C.M. 1947. W e hold the sentence legal and the court acted within i t s discretion. W e leave t o the Sentence Review Division a review of the equities of the sentence. Accordingly, the judgment i s affirmed. Justice .JudgeC/ s i t t i n g for Justice Wesley Castles.