Title: STATE v JELLE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-069
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 13, 1982

No. 82-69 I N T H E S U P R E M E COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA 1982 STATE O F M O E T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . JAMES E. JELLE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h 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 of J e f f e r s o n Honorable Frank B l a i r , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Robert Peterson argued, Heleena, Montana For Respondent: Honorable Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana S h e r i Sprigg argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana C e c i l Woodgate argued, County Attorney, Boulder, Montana Submitted: September 15, 1982 Decided: October 13, 1982 Filed: QcTl3'1982 M r . 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 . P e t i t i o n e r - a p p e l l a n t ( d e f e n d a n t ) p l e d g u i l t y to t h e charge of c r i m i n a l sale of dangerous d r u g s and r e c e i v e d a t h r e e - y e a r d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e on J u n e 9 , 1975. Subsequently, t h e s e n t e n c e was revoked and t h e District Court sentenced d e f e n d a n t to t e n y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . On August 1 3 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l District i n J e f f e r s o n County f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . The p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d on August 24, 1981, and d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s . Defendant was a r r e s t e d on March 22, 1975, f o r t h e c r i m i n a l sale of dangerous d r u g s . Defendant pled g u i l t y to t h e charge and judgment was rendered on J u n e 9 , 1975. The District Court imposed a t h r e e - y e a r d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e t o g e t h e r w i t h f i v e c o n d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n . The c o n d i t i o n s were as f o l l o w s : 1. That t h e d e f e n d a n t s e e k and complete r e h a b i l i t a t i o n f o r h i s admitted a l c o h o l i s m and t h a t he make e v e r y e f f o r t to a t t e n d a vo-tech s c h o o l and a c q u i r e t r a i n i n g and e d u c a t i o n t h a t w i l l pre- p a r e him f o r employment. 2. T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t obey a l l s t a t u t e s of t h e S t a t e of Montana and a l l m u n i c i p a l r e g u l a t i o n s and o r d i n a n c e s . 3 . That t h e d e f e n d a n t a b s t a i n from a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h a l l known u s e r s and sellers of dangerous d r u g s . 4 . T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t comply w i t h a l l r u l e s and r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e Board of Pardons, and r e p o r t r e g u l a r l y to t h e r e p r e s e n t a - t i v e of s a i d board. Two days l a t e r , on J u n e 11, 1975, d e f e n d a n t committed a m i s - demeanor t h e f t f o r which he pled g u i l t y . On J u l y 7 , 1975, t h e J e f f e r s o n County A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e f i l e d a motion t o revoke 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 on t h e grounds t h a t d e f e n d a n t had v i o l a t e d numbers t w o and t h r e e of h i s p r o b a t i o n by using a l c o h o l and committing a misdemeanor t h e £ t. A f t e r h e a r i n g , on J u l y 1 4 , 1975, t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e motion to revoke b u t amended t h e o r i g i n a l d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e to i n c l u d e a n o t h e r c o n d i t i o n , " [ t l h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t be committed to and confined a t t h e W a r m S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l , f o r n o t less than two y e a r s , f o r treat- ment of h i s a l c o h o l i s m , and o t h e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems." Defendant was committed to t h e Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l b u t escaped w i t h i n s i x weeks, sometime around August 2 0 , 1975. S h o r t l y af t e r d e f e n d a n t l e f t Warm S p r i n g s , d e f e n d a n t was iden- t i f i e d as a p a r t i c i p a n t i n a robbery i n Missoula, Montana. The d a y a f t e r t h e r o b b e r y , d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d i n Colorado f o l l o w i n g a shoot-out between d e f e n d a n t I s companion and t h e Colorado Highway P a t r o l . Although t h e shoot-out r e s u l t e d i n t w o d e a t h s , c h a r g e s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t were dropped because he had n o t t a k e n p a r t i n t h e s h o o t i n g i n c i d e n t . On October 8 , 1975, t h e J e f f e r s o n County A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e f i l e d a second motion to revoke t h e d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of sen- t e n c e upon t h e f o l l o w i n g grounds; t h a t d e f e n d a n t had l e f t W a r m S p r i n g ? w i t h o u t c o n s e n t of t h e s t a f f , t h a t d e f e n d a n t had com- m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e of robbery, t h a t d e f e n d a n t had been a r r e s t e d b y t h e Colorado Highway P a t r o l , t h a t d e f e n d a n t had l e f t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of h i s p a r o l e o f f i c e r w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n , t h a t d e f e n d a n t had engaged i n a series of c o n t i n u o u s v i o l a t i o n s of t h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e , and t h a t it was i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of s o c i e t y t h a t d e f e n d a n t be i n c a r c e r a t e d a t Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . On October 13, 1975, t h e D i s t r i c t Court revoked t h e 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 and sentenced d e f e n d a n t to t e n y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n on h i s p r e v i o u s p l e a of g u i l t y to t h e c h a r g e of c r i m i n a l sale of dangerous d r u g s . The D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n M i s s o u l a , Montana, o r d e r e d d e f e n d a n t to r e t u r n to Missoula whereupon d e f e n d a n t p l e d g u i l t y to t h e robbery charge. On March 1 2 , 1976, d e f e n d a n t was sentenced t o f o r t y y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , w i t h c r e d i t f o r 1 8 1 d a y s a l r e a d y served i n t h e Missoula County j a i l . On August 1 3 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e District Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l District i n J e f f e r s o n County f o r post- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 46-21-101, MCA, on t h e cri- m i n a l sale of dangerous d r u g s s e n t e n c e . On August 24, 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e p e t i t i o n . On J u n e 1 8 , 1982, d e f e n d a n t was r e l e a s e d from t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n on p a r o l e . A s of J u l y 1, 1982, t h e p r o j e c t e d d a t e f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r o l e was J u n e 20, 2012. I t a p p e a r s d e f e n d a n t h a s been g r a n t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e y e a r s , s e v e n t y - f o u r days of good time s i n c e he began s e r v i n g t h e Missoula County s e n t e n c e . According to t h e Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s , C o r r e c t i o n s D i v i s i o n , d e f e n d a n t ' s o b l i g a t i o n to J e f f e r s o n County to t h e ten-year s e n t e n c e was f u l f i l l e d on A p r i l 21, 1982, and he was d i s c h a r g e d due to completion of h i s sen- t e n c e . Defendant a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ' s d e n i a l of h i s 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 . The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e : 1. Whether t h e a p p e a l from t h e District C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t I s 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 is moot. 2. Whether t h e District Court v i o l a t e d s e c t i o n 95-2206, R.C.M., 1947, (now c o d i f i e d as s e c t i o n 46-18-201, MCA), and A r t . 11, Sec. 1 7 , of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n by amending d e f e n d a n t ' s d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e to i n c l u d e a mandatory two-year term a t t h e W a r m S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l . 3. Whether t h e i m p o s i t i o n of a mandatory two-year term a t W a r m S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l was n o t a c t u a l l y a c o n d i t i o n of t h e 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 b u t r a t h e r a v a l i d penal sen- tence. 4. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r - t a i n a second r e v o c a t i o n motion on O c t o b e r 8 , 1975, a s it had a l r e a d y imposed a p e n a l s e n t e n c e on J u l y 14, 1975. Respondent a r g u e s s i n c e d e f e n d a n t h a s a t t a c k e d o n l y t h e sen- t e n c e from J e f f e r s o n County t h a t h a s now e x p i r e d , t h e appeal is moot. The United S t a t e s Supreme Court r e c e n t l y r u l e d upon t h i s i s s u e i n Lane v. Williams ( 1 9 8 2 ) , U.S. .- , 1 0 2 S.Ct. 1322, --- - L.Ed.2d - - - - - . I n Lane, two d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d i n t o a p l e a -- b a r g a i n w i t h s t a t e - c o u r t p r o s e c u t o r s . The o f f e n s e c a r r i e d a n i n d e t e r m i n a t e s e n t e n c e of imprisonment and a mandatory t h r e e - y e a r p a r o l e t e r m . When t h e t w o d e f e n d a n t s pled g u i l t y , they were not informed t h a t t h e i r n e g o t i a t e d s e n t e n c e included t h e mandatory p a r o l e term. Both d e f e n d a n t s s e r v e d t i m e i n p r i s o n , were d i s c h a r g e d and s u b s e q u e n t l y v i o l a t e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e i r p a r o l e . When d e f e n d a n t s were f o r c e d t o r e t u r n to p r i s o n as p a r o l e v i o l a t o r s t h e y p e t i t i o n e d f o r a w r i t of habeas c o r p u s i n F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t Court s e e k i n g t o e l i m i n a t e t h e mandatory p a r o l e term from t h e i r s e n t e n c e s . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court h e l d t h a t had d e f e n d a n t s s o u g h t to set a s i d e t h e i r c o n v i c t i o n s and p l e d anew, t h e i r cases would n o t be moot as d e f e n d a n t s would t h e n be f r e e to s t a n d t r i a l f o r t h e o f f e n s e and p o s s i b l y r e c e i v e g r e a t e r s e n t e n c e s . However, d e f e n d a n t s s o u g h t o n l y to a t t a c k t h e i r s e n t e n c e s , which had e x p i r e d i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e i r pro- c e e d i n g s . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court held: " S i n c e r e s p o n d e n t s e l e c t e d o n l y to a t t a c k t h e i r s e n t e n c e s , and s i n c e t h o s e s e n t e n c e s e x p i r e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e s e pro- c e e d i n g s , t h i s case is moot. ' N u l l i f i c a t i o n o f a c o n v i c t i o n may have i m p o r t a n t b e n e f i t s f o r a d e f e n d a n t . . . b u t urging i n a habeas c o r p u s proceeding t h e c o r r e c t i o n of a s e n t e n c e a l r e a d y s e r v e d is a n o t h e r matter. ' North C a r o l i n a v. R i c e , 404 U.S. 244, 248, 92 S.Ct. 402, 405, 30 L.Ed.2d 413." 102 S.Ct. a t 1327. I n t h e p r e s e n t case as i n Lane, s u p r a , d e f e n d a n t is a t t e m p t i n g t o a t t a c k o n l y t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t a r o s e from h i s p l e a of g u i l t y to t h e c h a r g e of c r i m i n a l sale of dangerous d r u g s . A s e x p l a i n e d above, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e amount of good t i m e d e f e n d a n t h a s accumulated w h i l e s e r v i n g t h e J e f f e r s o n County s e n t e n c e and t h e merged Missoula County s e n t e n c e , t h e J e f f e r s o n County sen- t e n c e h a s now e x p i r e d and d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p e a l is moot. T h i s Court w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r moot p o i n t s . S t a t e v. B i n z l e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) , ---- Mont . - - , 599 P.2d 349, 36 St.Rep. 1580. Defendant a r g u e s a p r e v i o u s ten-year s e n t e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n 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 r e p o r t would have g r e a t e r in£ l u e n c e upon t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge t h a n would a two-year s e n t e n c e . However, a s e n t e n c i n g judge is to be concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e f a c t of a p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i o n , not t h e accompanying s e n t e n c e . See s e c t i o n 46-18-501, e t seq., MCA. Here, t h e record is void of any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t I s Missoula County s e n t e n c e was i n f l u e n c e d by t h e l e n g t h of t h e J e f f e r s o n County s e n t e n c e . A s d e f e n d a n t ' s appeal is now moot and a s t h e r e is nothing i n t h e record which r e f l e c t s defendant r e c e i v e d a g r e a t e r s e n t e n c e i n Missoula County due to t h e J e f f e r s o n County s e n t e n c e , t h e District C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r post- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f is af f irmed . n W e concur: \ I