STATE v SATHER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13523 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1977 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsWILLIAM CHRISTOPHER SATHER, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: District Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : P a u l B. S m i t h a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana W i l l i a m Boggs a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r Respondent : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana R o b e r t Deschamps 111, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana Ed McLean, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana - Submitted: Decided: A p r i l 1 5 , 1977 JUN -2 1977 Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . Defendant William C h r i s t o p h e r S a t h e r was c o n v i c t e d o f t h e c r i m e o f a t t e m p t e d b u r g l a r y by j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Missoula County. H e was s e n t e n c e d t o a t e r m o f 50 years i n t h e s t a t e prison a s a p e r s i s t e n t felony offender. De- f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from t h e s e n t e n c e imposed. his c a s e comes t o u s on t h e b a s i s of a n a g r e e d s t a t e ment o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e , and a c e r t i f i e d copy o f t h e d o c k e t e n t r i e s i n l i e u o f a t r a n s c r i p t and exh i b i t s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 95-2408, R.C.M. 1947. Defendant S a t h e r and Claude S y l v e s t e r McIntosh w e r e a r r e s t e d on September 30, 1975. Missoula County j a i l . They w e r e i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e On October 1 5 t h e y w e r e j o i n t l y c h a r g e d by d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h t h e c r i m e s o f a t t e m p t e d b u r g l a r y and theft. Each e n t e r e d a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y t o e a c h c h a r g e . On October 31 a w r i t t e n p l e a b a r g a i n p r o p o s a l and a g r e e - ment s i g n e d by t h e d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y and McIntosh w a s f i l e d with t h e d i s t r i c t court. The S t a t e , i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a p l e a o f g u i l t y t o t h e two c h a r g e s , a g r e e d t o recommend a s e n t e n c e o f 10 y e a r s on t h e c h a r g e o f a t t e m p t e d b u r g l a r y and 5 y e a r s on t h e c h a r g e o f t h e f t t o be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y and a n o t h e r 1 0 y e a r s and 5 y e a r s on c h a r g e s i n a n o t h e r c a s e t o be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y i n t h a t case b u t c o n s e c u t i v e l y w i t h t h e s e n t e n c e imposed f o r t h e attempted burglary. On November 4 McIntosh a p p e a r e d i n c o u r t w i t h c o u n s e l , withdrew h i s p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e s o f a t t e m p t e d b u r g l a r y and t h e f t and e n t e r e d a p l e a o f g u i l t y t o e a c h c h a r g e . 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 w a s o r d e r e d and s e n t e n c i n g s e t f o r November 20. On November 2 0 McIntosh r e c e i v e d a s e n t e n c e i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e p l e a b a r g a i n p r o p o s a l and agreement. McIntosh had p r e - v i o u s l y been c o n v i c t e d of t h r e e f e l o n i e s , two o f them w i t h i n t h e previous f i v e years. I n t h e meantime d u r i n g t h e week of November 7 t o November 1 4 a p a r o l e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g w a s h e l d i n t h e Missoula County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e on d e f e n d a n t S a t h e r ' s p a r o l e . Defen- d a n t S a t h e r r e q u e s t e d c o u n s e l b u t was n o t r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l a t t h e parole revocation hearing. On November 1 4 d e f e n d a n t S a t h e r w a s t r a n s p o r t e d t o t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n i n Deer Lodge. On December 29 t h e P a r o l e Board a t Montana S t a t e P r i s o n revoked d e f e n d a n t S a t h e r ' s p a r o l e c o n t i n g e n t on h i s c a s e b e i n g recons i d e r e d a f t e r d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e pending c h a r g e s . The c h a r g e s o f a t t e m p t e d b u r g l a r y and t h e f t a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t S a t h e r w e r e s e t f o r t r i a l i n t h e A p r i l , 1976 j u r y t e r m . Names o f p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s w e r e drawn on F e b r u a r y 20. On March 16 t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r y p a n e l was f i n a l i z e d and s e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s On March 18 t h e c a s e w a s s e t f o r t r i a l on by t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t . A p r i l 5 as t h e 9 t h c a s e . On March 22 t h e c a s e was reset f o r t r i a l from t h e 9 t h c a s e t o t h e 1 9 t h c a s e on A p r i l 5. Subsequently t h e c a s e was reset f o r A p r i l 1 2 and f i n a l l y f o r A p r i l 8. On A p r i l 7 d e f e n d a n t S a t h e r w a s t r a n s p o r t e d from t h e s t a t e p r i s o n t o t h e Missoula County j a i l . O t h a t d a t e t h e depn u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f i l e d and s e r v e d upon d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l a n o t i c e of i n t e n t t o s e e k i n c r e a s e d punishment p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n s 95-1506 and 95-1507, R.C.M. p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n of k i d n a p p i n g . 1947, by r e a s o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s A t t h a t t i m e t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y s t a t e d t h a t he would withdraw t h i s n o t i c e i f d e f e n d a n t p l e a d g u i l t y b e f o r e t h e c a s e went t o t r i a l and would t h e r e u p o n recommend a s e n t e n c e o f 10 y e a r s . The t r i a l s t a r t e d on A p r i l 8 . s t a t e ' s case-in-chief, A t t h e conclusion of t h e t h e p r e s i d i n g judge d i s m i s s e d t h e c h a r g e o f t h e f t on motion of t h e S t a t e . On A p r i l 1 2 , t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y on t h e c h a r g e o f a t t e m p t e d b u r g l a r y . On A p r i l 19 d e f e n d a n t S a t h e r was s e n t e n c e d t o 50 y e a r s imprisonment in the state prison and given credit for 45 days served in the Missoula County jail. No presentence report was made by the State Board of Pardons. On more than one occasion between defendant Sather's arrest and trial the deputy county attorney and defendant's counsel discussed the matter of defendant's plea. The deputy county attorney offered to recommend to the sentencing judge that defendant receive a sentence of 10 years in the state prison if he agreed to plead guilty. At the start of trial and again on the day of sentencing, counsel for defendant objected to the filing of notice to seek increased punishment less than 24 hours before trial contending that the filing of such notice under the circumstances was unlawful and unfair. The district court overruled defendant's objection. We were advised upon oral argument that during the pendency of this appeal, defendant Sather applied to the Sentence Review Board for reduction of his sentence which was denied. Defendant has appealed from the final judgment. All specifications of error are directed at the sentence imposed. None are directed at his conviction of attempted burglary. Defendant raises three specifications of error: (1) That Montana's statute of increased punishment for prior offenders as applied in this case denies defendant due process of law as required by federal and state constitutional provisions. (2) That the notice of intention to seek increased punish- ment was not timely served. (3) That defendant was not given proper credit for time served prior to conviction against the sentence imposed. Defendant's first specification of error carries us into deep constitutional waters. He claims that realistically he was s e n t e n c e d t o 10 y e a r s f o r a t t e m p t e d b u r g l a r y and 40 y e a r s f o r r e f u s i n g t o p l e a d g u i l t y and i n s i s t i n g upon a j u r y t r i a l . The c o r e o f h i s argument i s s i m p l y t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r used p l e a b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e d u r e s and invoked t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e f o r a n improper p u r p o s e and when t h a t d i d n o t work, t h e judge punished him w i t h a n e x c e s s i v e s e n t e n c e f o r r e f u s i n g t o p l e a d guilty. Defendant a s s e r t s t h a t t h e t o t a l i t y o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e t r u t h o f h i s c o n t e n t i o n s and s p e c i f i c a l l y p o i n t s t o these: (1) Knowledge by t h e p r o s e c u t o r o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n long b e f o r e invoking t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e on t h e eve of t r i a l , ( 2 ) a p p a r e n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e p r o s e c u t o r t h a t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t r e q u i r e d no g r e a t e r s e n t e n c e t h a n 1 0 y e a r s a s e v i d e n c e d by t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s o f f e r t o recommend a 10 y e a r sent e n c e i f d e f e n d a n t would p l e a d g u i l t y , ( 3 ) a f t e r invoking t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e l e s s t h a n 24 h o u r s b e f o r e t r i a l , t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s o f f e r t o withdraw it and recommend a 1 0 y e a r s e n t e n c e i f d e f e n d a n t would p l e a d g u i l t y b e f o r e t h e t r i a l s t a r t e d , (4) the f a i l u r e o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge t o s e c u r e and u t i l i z e 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 and r e p o r t from t h e S t a t e Board o f Pardons i n sent e n c i n g d e f e n d a n t , and ( 5 ) t h e d i s p a r i t y o f s e n t e n c e imposed upon h i s c o d e f e n d a n t who p l e a d g u i l t y a s compared t o t h e s e n t e n c e he received. Because o f t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s he was d e n i e d due p r o c e s s i n v i o l a t i o n o f f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements. The S t a t e , on t h e o t h e r hand, d e n i e s any a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n o r misconduct on t h e p a r t o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r o r s e n t e n c i n g judge. The S t a t e p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f p l e a b a r g a i n i n g between t h e p r o s e c u t o r and d e f e n d a n t wherein t h e p r o s e c u t o r o f f e r s t o recommend a l i g h t e r s e n t e n c e i n exchange f o r a g u i l t y p l e a i s n e i t h e r coercive i n a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l sense nor otherwise constitut i o n a l l y infirm. The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t where, a s h e r e , t h e r e i s no evidence of bad faith, discrimination or arbitrary use of plea bargaining, it is unobjectionable. The State emphasizes that both the prosecutor and judge acted within the limits of their statutory authority in sentencing defendant under Montana's habitual criminal statute. The State denies any abuse of dis- cretion on the part of the prosecutor or judge. In short, the State denies any "due process" violation under the facts of this case. It is important to note that defendant does not attack plea bargaining per se nor contend that Montana's habitual criminal statute is unconstitutional on its face. Defendant's con- stitutional attack is bottomed on the proposition that these procedures were unconstitutionally applied in his case to deny him due process of law. The broad dimensions of the pertinent constitutional requirements are quite clear. A person cannot be deprived of his liberty without due process of law. Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution; Art. 11, Section 17, 1972 Montana Constitution. A defendant in a criminal case has a constitutional right to a jury trial, Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution; Art. 11, Section 26, 1972 Montana Constitution. He also has the right or privilege against self-incrimination. Fifth Amendment, United States Constitution; Art. 11, Section 25, 1972 Montana Constitution. He waives these rights by entering a plea of guilty, but such waiver must be voluntary. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L Ed 2d 747, and cases cited therein. A coerced plea of guilty violates constitutional due process requirements. Rohrer v. Montana, 237 F.Supp. 747 (1965). Imper- missible coercion may exist in a variety of forms arising out of the conduct of the prosecutor or judge acting within statutory authority. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 8 4 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L Ed 2d 656; Hayes v. Cowen, United States Court of Appeals, 6 t h C i r c u i t (No. 76-1409), December 30, 1976. V i n d i c t i v e , re- t a l i a t o r y o r p u n i t i v e u s e of o t h e r w i s e u n o b j e c t i o n a b l e p r o c e d u r e s o f f e n d s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s . P e r r y , 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. Blackledge v. 2098, 4 0 L Ed 2d 628; North C a r o l i n a v . P e a r c e , s u p r a ; Hayes v . Cowen, s u p r a . The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i m p e r m i s s i b l e u s e o f p l e a b a r g a i n i n g and t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e by t h e p r o s e c u t o r . Long a f t e r d e f e n d a n t ' s background and p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n w e r e known t o t h e p r o s e c u t o r and a f t e r p l e a b a r g a i n i n g had f a i l e d , t h e p r o s e c u t o r invoked t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e t o s u b j e c t defendant t o a p o t e n t i a l sentence of 1 0 0 y e a r s a s opposed t o t h e s t a t u t o r y maximum of 1 0 y e a r s f o r a t t e m p t e d burglary. R.C.M. See s e c t i o n 95-1507, 1947; s e c t i o n 94-6-204, R.C.M. R.C.M. 1947; s e c t i o n 94-4-103, 1947. A f t e r invoking t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e t h e day b e f o r e t r i a l , t h e p r o s e c u t o r o f f e r e d t o withdraw t h i s a c t i o n and recommend a s e n t e n c e of 10 y e a r s i f d e f e n d a n t would p l e a d g u i l t y b e f o r e t h e t r i a l s t a r t e d . The r e c o r d i s b a r r e n o f any e v e n t o r c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t would j u s t i f y such a c t i o n by t h e p r o s e c u t o r w i t h i n t h e l e g i t i m a t e o b j e c t ives of the habitual criminal s t a t u t e o r t h e criminal j u s t i c e system. Although t h e u s e o f t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t o r , t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i s n o t unl i m i t e d and c a n n o t be used f o r improper p u r p o s e s . H e r e t h e prose- c u t o r knew o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i o r c r i m i n a l r e c o r d and had t h e p a r o l e b o a r d ' s e v a l u a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t b e f o r e him and had completed h i s information g a t h e r i n g long before invoking t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l statute. When t h e s e f u n c t i o n s w e r e completed, t h e p r o s e c u t o r was i n a p o s i t i o n t o e v a l u a t e whether t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s h o u l d be invoked i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t o r n o t . The p r o s e c u t o r d i d n o t do s o a t t h a t t i m e b u t w a i t e d u n t i l p l e a b a r g a i n i n g had broken down and t r i a l was o n l y 24 h o u r s away and even t h e n o f f e r e d t o withdraw h i s a c t i o n under t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e and recommend a 10 y e a r s e n t e n c e i f d e f e n d a n t would p l e a d g u i l t y . This a c t i o n i s not c o n s i s t e n t with a determination t h a t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t r e q u i r e d i n c r e a s e d punishment o f d e f e n d a n t u n d e r the habitual criminal statute. The o n l y s u p p o r t a b l e i n f e r e n c e i s t h a t such c o n d u c t was u s e d i n a n a t t e m p t t o c o e r c e d e f e n d a n t i n t o waiving h i s r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l . Subsequent e v e n t s , while n o t conclusive, lend support t o t h i s inference. R e t a l i a t o r y a c t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r f o r t h e e x e r c i s e o f p r o c e d u r a l r i g h t s by a n a c c u s e d h a s been h e l d t o v i o l a t e c o n s i t u t i o n a l due process requirements. supra. Blackledge v. Perry, T h e r e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t where d e f e n d a n t had a p p e a l e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n o f misdemeanor a s s a u l t i n a lower c o u r t and was e n t i t l e d t o a t r i a l d e novo i n s u p e r i o r c o u r t u n d e r s t a t e law, t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s s u b s e q u e n t a c t i o n i n obt a i n i n g a n i n d i c t m e n t f o r f e l o n y a s s a u l t c o v e r i n g t h e same cond u c t c o n t r a v e n e d t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment. The b a s i s f o r t h e r u l i n g was t h a t a d e f e n d a n t p u r s u i n g h i s p r o c e d u r a l r i g h t s under s t a t e law i s e n t i t l e d t o pursue t h o s e r i g h t s w i t h o u t a p p r e h e n s i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e w i l l r e t a l i a t e by s u b s t i t u t i n g a more s e r i o u s c h a r g e f o r t h e o r i g i n a l o n e and t h u s s u b j e c t him t o a s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d p o t e n t i a l p e r i o d o f i n carceration. S i m i l a r h o l d i n g s have been handed down by o t h e r f e d e r a l courts. The f e d e r a l c o u r t o f a p p e a l s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia r e v e r s e d a c o n v i c t i o n f o r t h e f i r s t d e g r e e murder f o l l o w i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s s e c u r i n g o f a m i s t r i a l on a p r i o r c h a r g e o f second d e g r e e murder. U n i t e d S t a t e s v . J a m i s o n , 5 0 5 F.2d 407 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . The U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n C a l i f o r n i a r e f u s e d t o a l l o w p r o s e c u t i o n o f a n i n d i c t m e n t on more s e r i o u s c h a r g e s a f t e r def e n d a n t had a s s e r t e d h i s r i g h t t o a change o f venue on a n i n d i c t ment c h a r g i n g l e s s s e r i o u s o f f e n s e s . 401 F.Supp. 505 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. DeMarco, And i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F.2d 1367 ( 9 t h C i r . 1976) t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t of a p p e a l s f o r t h e 9 t h C i r c u i t h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t be t r i e d o n a f e l o n y i n d i c t m e n t a f t e r h e h a s r e f u s e d t o p l e a d g u i l t y t o a misdemeanor, i f no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i n c r e a s e i n s e v e r i t y o f t h e c h a r g e s is offered. W e p e r c e i v e no d i f f e r e n c e i n p r i n c i p l e between t h e s e c a s e s and t h e i n s t a n t c a s e where t h e c h a r g e r e m a i n s unchanged b u t a s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c r e a s e d p e n a l t y i s s o u g h t by i n v o k i n g t h e habitual criminal statute. The f e d e r a l c o u r t o f a p p e a l s f o r t h e 6 t h C i r c u i t h a s recently held t h a t the prosecutor's t a c t i c s i n a case involving > p l e a b a r g a i n i n g and a h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e , p l a c e d t h e def e n d a n t i n f e a r o f r e t a l i a t o r y a c t i o n f o r i n s i s t i n g upon h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o s t a n d t r i a l and t h a t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d u e p r o c e s s was v i o l a t e d . Hayes v . Cowan, s u p r a . c his c a s e i s s i m i - l a r , a l t h o u g h n o t i d e n t i c a l , t o t h e i n s t a n t case o n t h e f a c t s . I n Hayes t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n d i c t e d f o r f o r g e r y . After arraign- ment, a p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e was h e l d w i t h t h e p r o s e c u t o r who o f f e r e d t o recommend a 5 y e a r s e n t e n c e i f d e f e n d a n t would p l e a d guilty. Defendant w a s warned t h a t i f he d i d n o t p l e a d g u i l t y he would be c h a r g e d u n d e r t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e . Defen- d a n t r e f u s e d t o p l e a d g u i l t y , b u t i n s i s t e d on r e c e i v i n g a f u l l trial. The p r o s e c u t o r t h e n o b t a i n e d a new i n d i c t m e n t from t h e grand j u r y charging defendant under t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e b a s e d upon t h e f o r g e r y a s a t h i r d o f f e n s e . Defendant was con- v i c t e d by a j u r y , and o n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s o f t h e judge, t h e man- d a t o r y l i f e s e n t e n c e f o r a t h i r d o f f e n s e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l was imposed. I n v a c a t i n g t h e s e n t e n c e , t h e c o u r t i n Hayes v . Cowan, s u p r a , set f o r t h i t s reasoning: "The Commonwealth u r g e s t h a t t h e e n t i r e c o n c e p t of p l e a bargaining w i l l be destroyed i f prosec u t o r s a r e n o t a l l o w e d t o s e e k c o n v i c t i o n s on more s e r i o u s c h a r g e s i f d e f e n d a n t s r e f u s e t o p l e a d g u i l t y . W e d o n o t a g r e e . Although a p r o s e c u t o r may i n t h e c o u r s e o f p l e a n e g o t i a t i o n o f f e r a defendant concessions r e l a t i n g t o p o s e u c t i o n under a n e x i s t i n g i n d i c t m e n t , [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] he may n o t t h r e a t e n a d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e consequence t h a t more s e v e r e c h a r g e s may be b r o u g h t i f he i n s i s t s on g o i n g t o t r i a l . When a p r o s e c u t o r o b t a i n s a n i n d i c t m e n t l e s s s e v e r e t h a n t h e f a c t s known t o him a t t h e t i m e might p e r m i t , h e makes a d i s c r e t i o n a r y determination t h a t t h e interests of t h e s t a t e a r e s e r v e d by n o t s e e k i n g more s e r i o u s c h a r g e s . [Citations omitted.] Accordingly, i f a f t e r p l e a n e g o t i a t i o n s f a i l , he t h e n p r o c u r e s a n i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g a more s e r i o u s c r i m e , a s t r o n g i n f e r e n c e i s c r e a t e d t h a t t h e o n l y r e a s o n f o r t h e more s e r i o u s charge i s vindictiveness. Under t h e s e circumstances, t h e prosecutor should be r e q u i r e d t o justify h i s action. In t h i s case, a vindict i v e m o t i v e need n o t be i n f e r r e d . The p r o s e c u t o r has admitted i t . " The o n l y m a t e r i a l d i s t i n c t i o n between Hayes and t h e c a s e on a p p e a l is t h a t t h e r e t h e prosecutor expressly threatened t h e defendant w i t h mandatory i n c r e a s e d punishment under t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e i f he d i d n o t p l e a d g u i l t y , w h i l e h e r e t h e p r o s e c u t o r exp r e s s e d no t h r e a t b u t s i m p l y invoked a d i s c r e t i o n a r y and p o t e n t i a l l y g r e a t e r p e n a l t y a f t e r p l e a b a r g a i n i n g had broken down. In our view, t h e c o e r c i v e e f f e c t i s a s s u r e l y p r e s e n t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e a s i n Hayes, d i f f e r i n g o n l y i n d e g r e e . For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s and based o n t h e c i t e d a u t h o r i t y , w e h o l d t h a t d e f e n d a n t w a s d e n i e d due p r o c e s s under f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s a s a p p l i e d t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s case. W e do n o t h o l d t h a t t h e p l e a b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s i n i t s e l f i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n f i r m n o r t h a t Montana's h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l on i t s f a c e . D e f e n d a n t ' s second s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r r e l a t i n g t o t h e t i m e l i n e s s of invoking t h e h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e i s i n s e p a r a b l e from t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e . A s t h e timing of i t s i n j e c t i o n i n t o t h e c a s e h a s been d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y and forms a b a s i s f o r o u r r u l i n g on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e r a i s e d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s f i r s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r , f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n a p p e a r s u n n e c e s s a r y . I n i t s b r i e f t h e S t a t e concedes d e f e n d a n t ' s t h i r d s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r . The S t a t e a d m i t s t h a t d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o c r e d i t of 6 months and 2 2 d a y s a g a i n s t h i s s e n t e n c e . This r e p r e s e n t s t h e t i m e a c t u a l l y s e r v e d by d e f e n d a n t between t h e d a t e o f h i s a r r e s t and t h e d a t e of s e n t e n c e . The 5 0 y e a r s e n t e n c e imposed i s v a c a t e d . The S t a t e ' s n o t i c e of i n t e n t t o s e e k i n c r e a s e d punishment under t h e h a b i t u a l criminal s t a t u t e i s ordered stricken. The c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t with d i r e c t i o n s t o resentence t h e defendant f o r t h e c r i m e of a t t e m p t e d b u r g l a r y w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e c r e d i t f o r t i m e a c t u a l l y s e r v e d a c c o r d i n g t o law. Justice Chief J u s t i c e (Specially concurring) I concur i n t h e r e s u l t o f t h e f o r e g o i n g d e c i s i o n but not i n t h e e n t i r e r a t i o n a l e of t h e majority opinion.
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.
