Court Opinion

ID: 9411185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 22:17:32.984465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.405364
License: Public Domain

07/25/2023

                                         DA 22-0353
                                                                                     Case Number: DA 22-0353

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

                                        2023 MT 145N

STATE OF MONTANA,

              Plaintiff and Appellee,

         v.

ROBERT EARL STAUDENMAYER,

              Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM:          District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
                      In and For the County of Lake, Cause No. DC-18-379
                      Honorable James A. Manley, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

               For Appellant:

                      Robert Earl Staudenmayer, Self-Represented, Shelby, Montana

               For Appellee:

                      Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Roy Brown, Assistant
                      Attorney General, Helena, Montana

                      James Lapotka, Lake County Attorney, Polson, Montana

                                                Submitted on Briefs: June 28, 2023

                                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

Filed:
                                    ir,-6m---if
                      __________________________________________
                                       Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana

Reports.

¶2     Appearing on his own behalf, Robert Earl Staudenmayer appeals a May 4, 2022

Order Dismissing his Petition for Postconviction Relief, issued in the Twentieth Judicial

District Court, Lake County. Staudenmayer maintains that another person did the crime

for which he entered a guilty plea. Upon review, we affirm.

¶3     Staudenmayer’s underlying criminal case spanned several years. The State initially

charged Staudenmayer on October 25, 2018, with three felonies: theft, money laundering,

and robbery. The first two offenses were for the theft of gold coins, guns, and artwork

from a storage locker as well as the re-sale of the items.1 The State charged Staudenmayer

and another person, Robert Gordon, with the first two offenses. On July 17, 2019,

Staudenmayer raised an alibi defense during the court’s omnibus hearing, and his counsel

filed the notice of an affirmative defense.

1
  The robbery offense was for a separate incident where Staudenmayer forcefully took a debit card
from his former girlfriend. The District Court later severed that charge upon defense counsel’s
motion.
                                                2
¶4        On July 24, 2019, the District Court conducted a change of plea hearing.

Staudenmayer entered guilty pleas to theft and money laundering.2 On September 11,

2019, the District Court sentenced him to the Montana State Prison for concurrent terms of

ten years for theft and twenty years for money laundering. Staudenmayer obtained new

counsel who moved for withdrawal of the guilty pleas on the twin bases of an inadequate

plea colloquy and a prison sentence instead of a commitment to the Department of

Corrections. The District Court granted Staudenmayer’s motion to withdraw, vacated the

written sentencing judgment on February 28, 2020, and set the matter for a hearing.

¶5        On December 16, 2020, the District Court held a change of plea hearing, and the

court conducted an extensive colloquy, explaining that Staudenmayer could not withdraw

his guilty plea after his plea to theft. An acknowledgment of rights was signed and filed.

Staudenmayer entered an Alford plea3 to theft, and the court dismissed the money

laundering charge. On February 3, 2021, the court sentenced Staudenmayer to a ten-year,

unsuspended prison term with a ten-year parole ineligibility restriction.4

¶6        On February 1, 2022, Staudenmayer timely filed a Petition for Postconviction

Relief, asserting new evidence proving his “innocence.” Staudenmayer included a copy of

a verified letter from Richard Gordon, who put forth that his co-defendant, Staudenmayer,

2
  The State moved to dismiss the robbery charge at sentencing and later moved to dismiss two
separate charges of strangulation of a partner or family member and bail jumping.
3
    N.C. v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970).
4
  On July 22, 2021, Staudenmayer filed a motion to withdraw guilty plea, because he was not
given the opportunity to object to appearing via audio-video communication for a change of plea,
pursuant to § 46-16-105, MCA. Following the State’s response in opposition, the District Court
denied his motion.
                                                 3
“had nothing to do with this crime.” Without a response from the State or a hearing, the

District Court issued an order denying and dismissing his Petition, concluding: “This is not

newly discovered evidence or evidence that could not have been discovered with

reasonable diligence prior to the guilty plea.”

¶7     This Court reviews a district court’s denial of a petition for postconviction relief to

determine whether the court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its

conclusions of law are correct. Oliphant v. State, 2023 MT 43, ¶ 29, 411 Mont. 250, 525

P.3d 1214 (citing Jordan v. State, 2007 MT 165, ¶ 5, 338 Mont. 113, 162 P.3d 863).

¶8     Staudenmayer contends that the District Court erred in denying his petition for

relief. Staudenmayer maintains that Gordon’s affidavit exonerates him. Staudenmayer

also challenges the court’s “factual basis” determination of a plea, pursuant to

§ 46-12-212(1), MCA, asserting that the determination was inadequate “to support the

acceptance of [his] [Alford] plea . . . .”

¶9     In response, the State reiterates that the evidence is not new as the court pointed out

in its Order and as demonstrated by the record. Moreover, the State points out that

Staudenmayer voluntarily entered his plea at his December 16, 2020 hearing and that he

did not raise the issue of an inadequate factual basis for his plea in his petition for

postconviction relief. The State further points out that Staudenmayer cannot challenge his

plea now and through a petition for postconviction relief. See Sanders v. State, 2004 MT

374, ¶ 16, 325 Mont. 59, 103 P.3d 1053.

¶10    We conclude that the District Court’s denial of Staudenmayer’s Petition is not in

error. The court concluded the record “conclusively shows Petitioner is not entitled to the
                                              4
relief requested.” See § 46-21-201(1), MCA. The court noted Staudenmayer’s consistent

argument through his underlying criminal proceeding:

              Petitioner’s claim relates to one contention: that another person,
       Mr. Gordon, “did the crime[.]” Mr. Gordon’s statement or affidavit is
       attached to the petition. This is not newly discovered evidence or evidence
       that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to the
       guilty plea. This was a contention the defendant had advanced throughout
       the case. The police reports identified Gordon as a co-actor in the series of
       crimes that included the felony theft Petitioner was convicted of.
       Mr. Staudenmayer chose not to go to trial. He received the benefit of the
       bargain with the [S]tate (dismissal of Count II). He could have gone to trial
       and testified to this, or subpoenaed Mr. Gordon for trial, or had his attorneys
       cross-examine Gordon.          This contention is not a legal basis for
       postconviction relief.

We have stated before that “[n]ot all information obtained after trial qualifies as ‘new’

evidence.” Oliphant, ¶ 33. Here, Staudenmayer presents an argument that he has put forth

since the July 2019 alibi defense. Moreover, at his December 16, 2020 change of plea

hearing, Staudenmayer admitted that the State could show he knowingly possessed stolen

property, and Gordon’s recent affidavit does not change that admission or the factual basis

for the plea. The court did not err in its findings nor issue incorrect conclusions of law.

Oliphant, ¶¶ 29-32.

¶11    Staudenmayer’s other claim concerning his plea cannot be addressed in this appeal.

“A postconviction claim that is not raised in an original or amended original petition cannot

be raised for the first time on appeal.”         Sanders, ¶ 16.    We decline to address

Staudenmayer’s claim not preserved for appeal.

¶12    Staudenmayer did not present any basis for postconviction relief, and the court

correctly denied his petition.

                                             5
¶13    We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents

no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent

or modify existing precedent.

¶14    Affirmed.

                                                  /S/ MIKE McGRATH

We Concur:

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ JIM RICE

                                             6