Opinion ID: 883908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the District Court increase Allen's punishment because he exercised his constitutional right to a trial?

Text: District courts have broad discretion in sentencing defendants convicted of criminal offenses. State v. Smith (1996), ___ Mont. ___, ___, 916 P.2d 773, 780 (citing State v. Lloyd (1984), 208 Mont. 195, 199, 676 P.2d 229, 231). This Court will generally review a criminal sentence only for legalitythat is, to determine whether it is within the statutory parameters established by the legislature; where a sentence is within those parameters, we generally will affirm it. Smith, 916 P.2d at 780; See also State v. Almanza (1987), 229 Mont. 383, 386, 746 P.2d 1089, 1091. However, there are exceptions to these general rules. Punishing a person for exercising a constitutional right is a basic due process violation. State v. Baldwin (1981), 192 Mont. 521, 525, 629 P.2d 222, 225. Pointing to the disparity between the pre-trial plea offer and the ultimate sentence imposed, Allen contends that his sentence may have been in retaliation for rejecting the plea offer and going to trial. Relying on Baldwin, Allen maintains that the disparity between the sentence he received and the pre-trial plea offer was a result of the District Court's punishing him for exercising his constitutionally protected right to a trial. As this Court explained in Baldwin, 629 P.2d at 225, [a] policy of leniency following a plea is proper, but its converse, `extra' severity following trial is not. However, a mere disparity between the sentence offered during plea bargaining and that ultimately imposed is not, of itself, improper. Baldwin, 629 P.2d at 225; In re Lewallen (1979), 23 Cal.3d 274, 152 Cal.Rptr. 528, 531, 590 P.2d 383, 386. This case significantly differs from Baldwin where the sentencing court wrote defense counsel a letter which explained, [u]pon a plea of guilty the minimum sentence that I would give Mr. Baldwin would be a 5 year sentence with all but 45 days suspended, said 45 days to be served in the State Prison at Deer Lodge, Powell County, Montana.... I feel that this is as lenient as I can possibly be in the case, and that if he does not want to enter a plea on these conditions why should we prepare to go to trial on the merits of the case. Baldwin, 629 P.2d at 224. Unlike Baldwin, where the district court participated in the plea bargaining process, Allen has presented no evidence that the District Court in this case was involved in pre-trial plea negotiations. Although there is a disparity between the sentence proposed by the State and the sentence Allen ultimately received, Allen has failed to show that this disparity is the result of the District Court's punishing him for going to trial. Because Allen has failed to substantiate his claim that he was punished for exercising his right to a trial, we affirm the District Court's sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court. TURNAGE, C.J., and ERDMANN, TRIEWEILER and GRAY, JJ., concur.