STATE v SATTLER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13159 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1976 THE STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - ROBERT F , SATTLER, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t J . Boyd, Judge p r e s i d i n g , Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: John P r a t e r , T e r r y , Montana F o r Respondent : Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana J o s e p h Connors, County A t t o r n e y , Anaconda, Montana Argument s u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s . Submitted: A p r i l 21, 1976 Decided : Filed: 3 ) i; { , .-A A />, mf L 3 @;& 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 o f t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from t h e r e f u s a l o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t Deer Lodge County t o a l l o w a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n t o withdraw h i s p l e a of guilty. The f a c t s a r e n o t i n d i s p u t e . Robert F. S a t t l e r and h i s w i f e were a r r e s t e d by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s o f Deer Lodge County and charged w i t h t h e c r i m e o f a g g r a v a t e d b u r g l a r y on o r about F e b r u a r y 20, 1975. Tim W. Reardon, Deer Lodge County P u b l i c Defender, c o n t a c t e d t h e c o u p l e i n t h e county j a i l a t Anaconda on February 21, 1975. He was informed t h a t Lynn S a t t l e r , t h e w i f e , was p r e g n a n t and s h e was h a v i n g some d i f f i c u l t i e s i n j a i l due t o h e r pregnancy. Defense c o u n s e l found t h a t b a i l f o r $13,000 f o r each person had been s e t and n e i t h e r could make b a i l . Thereafter, defense counsel contacted t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e and arrangements were made f o r t h e c o u p l e t o waive p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g and Lynn S a t t l e r was r e l e a s e d on h e r own r e c o g n i z a n c e . On t h a t same d a t e , February 21, a n o t h e r f e l o n y ch.arge was f i l e d i n t h e a d j a c e n t c o u n t y o f S i l v e r Bow c h a r g i n g t h e c o u p l e w i t h t h e c r i m e of armed r o b b e r y of Fairmont Hot S p r i n g s , a r e s o r t s i t u a t e d between B u t t e and Anaconda, Montana. S a t t l e r entered a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y t o t h a t c h a r g e on March 5 , 1975. During t h i s p e r i o d , Reardon informed S a t t l e r t h e r e would be a change o f d e f e n s e c o u n s e l under t h e Defender P r o j e c t sometime i n March and on March 1 7 , 1975, M r . John P r a t e r was a p p o i n t e d P u b l i c Defender f o r t-he t h i r d j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t and assumed t h e defense of t h e i n s t a n t case. Reardon a g r e e d t o a s s i s t P r a t e r and d i s c u s s e d a l l t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e c a s e w i t h him. Counsel d i s c u s s e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of p l e a b a r g a i n i n g w i t h t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e a t t h e r e q u e s t of d e f e n d a n t S a t t l e r , and p u r s u a n t t h e r e t o he changed h i s n o t g u i l t y p l e a t o g u i l t y and was s e n t e n c e d t o 20 y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e prison. ~ J ~ T ~i L 4s t h e ~ l . t f d b a r g a i n Lynn S a t t l e r w a s t o 2 n c e i lea aL- g u i l t y (she d i d s o on !-fay 1 7 , and t h e r e a f t e r r e c e i v e d an 3 y e a r suspended s e n t e n c e ) and no c h a r g e s would be p r o s e c u t e d by $:he a u t h o r i t i e s o f S i l v e r Bow County on t h e armed r o b b e r y . There- a l t e r on t h e same day o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a , t h e e v i d e n c e on t h e b u r g l a r y c h a r g e was r e t u r n e d t o i t s owner. On A p r i l 3 , d e f e n d a n t escaped from t h e c o u n t y j a i l . He was Later apprehended and p l e a d g u i l t y t o an e s c a p e c h a r g e . On May 1 4 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t t h r o u g h a new c o u n s e l , moved ::he ,:ourt t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a . H i s motion was d e n i e d . The s o l e i s s u e i s whether o r n o t u n d e r t h e f a c t s t h e d i s e r r i c c ~ o u r t r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w d e f e n d a n t t o withdraw h i s p l e a . T h i s Court c a n n o t imagine a s t r o n g e r f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n s u p p d r t of a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o n o t a l l o w a w i t h d r a w a l +, J: a g u i l t y plea. For two months d e f e n d a n t t h r o u g h competent ~ o u n s e ld e a l t w i t h and r e c e i v e d e v e r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e a u t h o r i t i e s ~i two c o u n t i e s i n which he i s a l l e g e d t o have committed s e r i o u s i e i o n i e s , could give. H i s w i f e , a l s o charged with t h e f e l o n i e s , 3 p e n t b u t one day i n j a i l , v7as a l l o w e d t o go f r e e on h e r own r e c o g n i z a n c e and u l t i m a t e l y r e c e i v e d a suspended s e n t e n c e . Now 'zhdz t h e e v i d e n c e o f h i s b u r g l a r y h a s been r e t u r n e d t o i t s r i g h t f u l \ m n e r and nay no l o n g e r b e a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e a t t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t ,qants t o p l a y games w i t h t h e c o u r t . I n S t a t e v. G r i f f i n , St.:<ep. Mont . , 535 P.2d 498, 504, 32 446, 455, t h e Court s t a t e d : The t r i a l judge h a s c o m p l e t e d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r , s e c t i o n 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947 Ji ;. k" I I .I- Ji -'. db * 5ee 3lso. i t a t e v. v. S c a l i s e , 1 3 1 Mont. 238, 309 P.2d 1010; S t a t e ? e l k e , 143 Xont. 262, 389 P.2d 164. Here, d e f e n d a n t i s t r y i n g t o e n j o y a l l of t h e b e n e f i t s i ,Lea b a r g a i n i n g arrangement w i t h o u t complying w i t h i t . I n ; f a t e v. Nance, 120 Mont. 152, 166, 184 P.2d 554, t h e Court s a i d : "9; 9; A - it will not lend its assistance to an accused criminal in escaping the obligations of his a reement after accepting the benefits thereof. 6 The decision of the district court is affirmed. We Concur: &df Justices.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.