STATE v LANCE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-206 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs . JOHN FESLER LANCE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Ravalli Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presidinq. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Koch & McKenna, Hamilton, Montana Thomas P. Koch, Hamilton, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert B. Brown, County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana ----- Submitted on briefs: Seotember 10, 1982 Filed: ocl' 6 - 1982 Decided:. October 4, 1982 J u s t i c e John Court. Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d Mr. was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e crime of Defendant-appellant interference arising August 1 3 , 1979. t h e O p i n i o n of out of an incident which the custodial took place on On December 1 8 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e d a t e s e t f o r t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a p l e a o f g u i l t y to t h e c h a r g e w h i l e a t a conf e r e n c e i n t h e judges chambers. On F e b r u a r y 1 8 , 1 9 8 2 , d e f e n d a n t The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d moved t o w i t h d r a w h i s p l e a o f g u i l t y . d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n and d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s . P u r s u a n t t o a d e c r e e of d i v o r c e e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f 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 of t h e S t a t e of M o n t a n a , s i x - y e a r o l d , Brad L a n c e , w a s p l a c e d defendant's Court had ex-wife. issued i n t h e l e g a l c u s t o d y of Dale L a n c e , Prior to August a restraining i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h Dale L a n c e ' s order 13, 1979, enjoining c u s t o d y of the ~istrict defendant from t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n and f r o m d i s t u r b i n g t h e p e a c e o f Dale L a n c e and t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n . On A u g u s t 13, 1979, defendant removed s l e e p i n g i n a t e n t i n t h e y a r d of Dale L a n c e . Brad Lance w i t h p r o t e s t 13, August parking Brad 1979, l o t of Lance was Tremper I duled s returned D e f e n d a n t was a r r a i g n e d custodial from Dale L a n c e . was defendant J u d g e Gordon R . 18, D e f e n d a n t removed Later located and i n t h e day of arrested to Dale and p l e d Lance 1979. in the , Montana. Missoula police. Shopping C e n t e r i n Missoula by " n o t g u i l t y " t o t h e c h a r g e of i n t e r f e r e n c e on September 21, f o r December L a n c e who w a s Brad T r i a l was s c h e - 1979. Thomas P . Koch was a p p o i n t e d by B e n n e t t to r e p r e s e n t d e f e n d a n t , b u t s i n c e defen- dant refused M r . Kochls s e r v i c e s , the trial c o u r t a s k e d him t o a p p e a r as " s t a n d b y c o u n s e l . " On December 13, 1979, t h e county a t t o r n e y , Douglas H a r k i n , J u d g e B e n n e t t , t h e d e f e n d a n t and M r . Koch m e t i n c h a m b e r s t o cons i d e r preliminary motions. limine to exclude a The c o u n t y a t t o r n e y made a m o t i o n i n letter written J u d g e B e n n e t t d a t e d December 1 4 , 1 9 7 9 . by d e f e n d a n t a d d r e s s e d to Defendant s t a t e d t h a t the r e a d i n g o f t h e l e t t e r would c o n s t i t u t e h i s d e f e n s e t o t h e c h a r g e of custodial interference. The t r i a l court granted t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s motion to e x c l u d e t h e l e t t e r , h o l d i n g t h a t a m a j o r i t y of i t s c o n t e n t s were irrelevant to t h e case before the court. A f t e r c o n v e r s i n g w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t , d e f e n d a n t s t a t e d to a v o i d f o r c i n g h i s s o n t o t e s t i f y and t o s a v e t i m e he would p l e a d g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e a s t h e l e t t e r was t h e o n l y d e f e n s e he was g o i n g to present. Whereupon, t h e p r o c e e d i n g was moved from t h e chambers to t h e c o u r t r o o m w h e r e t h e j u d g e opened t h e m a t t e r f o r t r i a l , r e a d d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a i n t o t h e r e c o r d and d i s m i s s e d t h e j u r y . 27, 1 9 8 0 , d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o t e n y e a r s On J u n e in prison, with a l l t i m e suspended e x c e p t t h a t a l r e a d y served. On F e b r u a r y 1 8 , 1 9 8 2 , d e f e n d a n t , motion appearing p r o se, f i l e d a t o w i t h d r a w h i s p l e a of g u i l t y . On F e b r u a r y 2 3 , 1982, J u d g e B e n n e t t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n and e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law in s u p p o r t of h i s o r d e r on March 8, 1982. to w i t h d r a w t h e Defendant a p p e a l s t h e o r d e r denying h i s motion p l e a of g u i l t y . Defendant r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review: 1. plea Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by a c c e p t i n g t h e g u i l t y without informing d e f e n d a n t of a possible defense to the c h a r g e v i a s e c t i o n 45-5-304 ( 3 ) , MCA. 2. Whether the guilty p l e a was a c c e p t e d i n open c o u r t as r e q u i r e d u n d e r s e c t i o n 46-16-105 (1) a ) , MCA. ( 3. Whether the District Court erred in determining that undue d e l a y j u s t i f i e d t h e d e n i a l . S e c t i o n 45-5-304, MCA, states: ( 1 ) A p e r s o n com"Custodial interference. m i t s t h e o f f e n s e of c u s t o d i a l i n t e r f e r e n c e i f , knowing t h a t he h a s no l e g a l r i g h t t o do so, h e t a k e s , e n t i c e s , or w i t h h o l d s from l a w f u l c u s t o d y any c h i l d , incompetent p e r s o n , or o t h e r p e r s o n e n t r u s t e d by a u t h o r i t y of l a w to t h e c u s t o d y of a n o t h e r p e r s o n o r i n s t i t u t i o n " ( 3 ) A p e r s o n who h a s n o t l e f t t h e s t a t e d o e s n o t c o m m i t a n o f f e n s e u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n i f he v o l u n t a r i l y r e t u r n s s u c h p e r s o n t o law£ u l c u s t o d y p r i o r to a r r a i g n m e n t ." Here, d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d a t t h e s h o p p i n g c e n t e r and h i s - 3 - s o n was r e t u r n e d t o d e f e n d a n t ' s e x - w i f e by t h e M i s s o u l a p o l i c e . I t does not appear defendant was given an opportunity t a r i l y r e t u r n t h e c h i l d t o the mother. t o s e c t i o n 45-5-304, MCA, to v o l u n - The C o m m i s s i o n ' s comments state: " [ o l n e s h o u l d be e s p e c i a l l y c a u t i o u s i n p r o viding penal sanctions applicable t o estranged p a r e n t s s t r u g g l i n g o v e r the c u s t o d y of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , s i n c e s u c h s i t u a t i o n s are b e t t e r r e g u l a t e d b y c u s t o d y o r d e r s e n £o r c e d t h r o u g h contempt proceedings " . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e Commission's taking of the child in comments. violation of the Here, d e f e n d a n t ' s custody p o s s i b l y have been grounds f o r a contempt c h a r g e . order could However, t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t c o n d o n e c h a r g i n g a n e s t r a n g e d husband or w i f e w i t h c u s t o d i a l i n t e r f e r e n c e j u s t b e c a u s e t h e y w a n t to s p e n d t i m e w i t h t h e i r n a t u r a l c h i l d , when t h e y d o n o t a t t e m p t to h i d e or s e c r e t s u c h c h i l d from t h e o t h e r p a r e n t . The r e c o r d shows d e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d e x a c t l y w h e r e he t o l d t h e m o t h e r he would b e . t h a t d e f e n d a n t would h a v e b e e n b e t t e r r e p r e s e n t e d aware chosen to a v a i l himself of the a d v i c e of W are e had legal counsel. he The r e c o r d is v o i d o f a n y i n d i c a t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t was aware of t h e a v a i l a b l e d e f e n s e as c o n t a i n e d i n sect i o n 45-5-304, 46-16-105, s t a t e s when a p l e a of MCA, MCA. Section g u i l t y may be a c c e p t e d : " ( 1 ) B e f o r e o r d u r i n g t r i a l , a p l e a of g u i l t y may be a c c e p t e d when: " ( a ) t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t e r s a p l e a of g u i l t y i n o p e n c o u r t ; and " ( b ) t h e c o u r t h a s i n f o r m e d t h e d e f e n d a n t of t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of h i s p l e a and o f t h e maximum p e n a l t y p r o v i d e d b y l a w w h i c h may b e imposed upon a c c e p t a n c e of s u c h a p l e a . " ( 2 ) A t a n y t i m e b e f o r e or a f t e r judgment t h e c o u r t may, f o r good c a u s e shown, p e r m i t t h e p l e a o f g u i l t y to he w i t h d r a w n and a p l e a of not guilty substituted." The s t a n d a r d b y w h i c h t h e v a l i d i t y o f a g u i l t y p l e a is judged whether the plea r e p r e s e n t s a v o l u n t a r y and is i n t e l l i g e n t choice among t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n o p e n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t a s a f f i r m a t i v e l y d i s c l o s e d by t h e r e c o r d . Mont (1979 1I . , Mont 6 1 2 P.2d . -- - -- - - S c h a n t l e v. C r i s t ( 1980 ) , 6 7 3 , 37 S t . R e p . , 5 9 7 P.2d 1053; Yother v. S t a t e 7 9 , 36 St.Rep. 1192. While i t is c l e a r t h a t c o u r t s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d a n i n d e p t h e x a m i n a t i o n by r i g h t s when a c c e p t i n g a g u i l t y p l e a , the court to articulate specific i s d e s i r a b l e and m a n d a t o r y i n cases w h e r e t h e r e c o r d r e q u i r e s it. Yother , supra. t h e d i s c u s s i o n i n chambers between t h e c o u r t , Here, standby c o u n s e l and d e f e n d a n t was as f o l l o w s : "THE COURT: NOW, e v e n t h o u g h you h a v e n ' t a s k e d , c o n s e n t e d f o r him t o be y o u r a t t o r n e y , I would l i k e t o a s k M r . Koch i f you b e l i e v e t h i s p l e a i s now b e i n g e n t e r e d v o l u n t a r i l y w i t h f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g of w h a t ' s i n v o l v e d ? "MR. KOCH: "THE COURT: I b e l i e v e t h a t he h a s y o u r h o n o r . -- And you c a n s a y t h a t "MR. KOCH: I ' m not sure t h a t I believe t h a t i t is wise, b u t I b e l i e v e h e knows w h a t h e i s doing. Can you s a y "THE COURT: Very w e l l . you're entering t h i s plea voluntarily? "MR. LANCE: that Y e s , Your H o n o r . "THE COURT: W i t h f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w h a t ' s involved? A l l right. I ' l l a c c e p t your p l e a o f g u i l t y , and t h a t c o n c l u d e s t h e f u n c t i o n o f the jury " . Here, it was n o t a n i n t e l l i g e n t c h o i c e f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t to e n t e r a p l e a o f g u i l t y when t h e r e was a n a v a i l a b l e d e f e n s e i n t h e s t a tute. The meaning and c o n s e q u e n c e s of s e c t i o n 4 5 - 5 - 3 0 4 ( 3 ) , s h o u l d have been e x p l a i n e d to t h e d e f e n d a n t and the record s i m p l y empty as t o a n y d i s c u s s i o n i n t h a t r e g a r d . hold the without District fully Court informing erred him of in the accepting MCA, We therefore defendant's available is defense plea to the move to charge. Although withdraw delay did his defendant plea, not waited considering justify the over the denial. three facts As we years of to this have case, undue already found r e v e r s i b l e error as t o t h e a c c e p t a n c e of t h e g u i l t y p l e a , w e w i l l n o t comment upon w h e t h e r t h e p l e a w a s a c c e p t e d i n o p e n c o u r t a s r e q u i r e d u n d e r s e c t i o n 46-16-105 (1) a ) , MCA. ( Judgment is reversed, and this cause is remanded District Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings with d i r e c t i o n s to the to allow t h e a p p e l l a n t to withdraw h i s p l e a . We concur: Chief, Justice F="

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.