STATE v JELLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 82-69 I N T E SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O MONTANA H F 1982 STATE O MOETANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, VS . JAMES E. JELLE, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of J e f f e r s o n Honorable Frank B l a i r , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant: R o b e r t P e t e r s o n a r g u e d , H e l e e n a , Montana F o r Respondent: Honorable 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 S h e r i Sprigg argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, H e l e n a , Montana C e c i l Woodgate a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , B o u l d e r , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: QcTl3'1982 September 1 5 , 1982 O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1982 M r . 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 Petitioner-appellant sale drugs d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e on J u n e 9 , 1975. was revoked of and the District and t h e D i s t r i c t Court of received Subsequently, Court y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . petitioned the ( d e f e n d a n t ) p l e d g u i l t y to t h e c h a r g e of dangerous criminal t h e O p i n i o n of sentenced a three-year the sentence d e f e n d a n t to ten On A u g u s t 1 3 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l District i n J e f f e r s o n County f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n The p e t i t i o n was relief. d e n i e d on A u g u s t 2 4 , 1 9 8 1 , and d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s . D e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d o n March 2 2 , sale of dangerous d r u g s . 1975, for the criminal D e f e n d a n t p l e d g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e and j u d g m e n t was r e n d e r e d o n J u n e 9 , 1 9 7 5 . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t imposed a three-year The c o n d i t i o n s were as f o l l o w s : probation. 1. d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e t o g e t h e r w i t h f i v e c o n d i t i o n s of T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s e e k and c o m p l e t e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n f o r h i s a d m i t t e d a l c o h o l i s m and t h a t he make e v e r y e f f o r t t o a t t e n d a vo-tech s c h o o l and a c q u i r e t r a i n i n g and e d u c a t i o n t h a t w i l l p r e - p a r e him f o r employment. 2. That Montana 3. and That the defendant all the obey municipal defendant all statutes regulations abstain from of the and S t a t e of ordinances. association with all known u s e r s and s e l l e r s o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s . 4. of T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t comply w i t h a l l r u l e s and r e q u i r e m e n t s t h e Board o f P a r d o n s , and r e p o r t r e g u l a r l y to t h e r e p r e s e n t a - t i v e of s a i d board. Two d a y s l a t e r , o n J u n e 11, 1 9 7 5 , d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d a m i s d e m e a n o r t h e f t f o r which h e p l e d g u i l t y . Jefferson County Attorney's Office On J u l y 7 , filed a motion 1975, to the revoke d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n o f s e n t e n c e on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t d e f e n d a n t had v i o l a t e d numbers t w o and t h r e e of h i s p r o b a t i o n by u s i n g a l c o h o l and committing a misdemeanor t h e £t . A f t e r h e a r i n g , on J u l y 1 4 , 1 9 7 5 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n t o r e v o k e b u t amended the original deferred sentence to include another condition, " [ t l h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t be c o m m i t t e d f o r n o t l e s s t h a n two y e a r s , Springs State Hospital, ment of his alcoholism, and other f o r treat- psychological problems." to t h e Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l was c o m m i t t e d Defendant t o and c o n f i n e d a t t h e Warm b u t escaped w i t h i n s i x weeks, sometime around August 2 0 , 1975. l e f t W a r m S p r i n g s , d e f e n d a n t was i d e n - S h o r t l y af ter defendant t i f i e d as a p a r t i c i p a n t i n a r o b b e r y i n M i s s o u l a , Montana. day after following the a robbery, shoot-out defendant between C o l o r a d o Highway P a t r o l . was arrested defendant I in Colorado companion s The and the resulted in two Although t h e shoot-out d e a t h s , c h a r g e s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t were d r o p p e d b e c a u s e h e had n o t taken p a r t i n the shooting incident. On O c t o b e r 8 , 1975, t h e J e f f e r s o n County A t t o r n e y ' s Office f i l e d a s e c o n d m o t i o n t o r e v o k e t h e d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of t e n c e upon the following grounds; Spring? without c o n s e n t of m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e of by the Colorado jurisdiction of robbery, Highway his the staff, l e f t Warm t h a t d e f e n d a n t had com- t h a t d e f e n d a n t had b e e n a r r e s t e d Patrol, parole t h a t d e f e n d a n t had sen- that officer defendant without had left permission, the that d e f e n d a n t had e n g a g e d i n a s e r i e s o f c o n t i n u o u s v i o l a t i o n s of t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e , and t h a t it was i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of s o c i e t y t h a t d e f e n d a n t be State Prison. On O c t o b e r 13, 1 9 7 5 , the deferred t e n years guilty to The i m p o s i t i o n of a t Montana the D i s t r i c t Court revoked s e n t e n c e and s e n t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t to i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n on h i s p r e v i o u s p l e a of the charge District Missoula, incarcerated Court Montana, of of ordered criminal the sale of Fourth defendant dangerous Judicial to return drugs. District in Missoula to w h e r e u p o n d e f e n d a n t p l e d g u i l t y to t h e r o b b e r y c h a r g e . On March 1 2 , 1 9 7 6 , d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o f o r t y y e a r s i n t h e Montana State Prison, with credit for 181 days already served in the Missoula County j a i l . On A u g u s t 1 3 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t p e t i t i o n e d of the Fifth Judicial District in Jefferson t h e District Court County f o r post- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 46-21-101, m i n a l s a l e of dangerous d r u g s s e n t e n c e . on t h e cri- MCA, On A u g u s t 2 4 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e District Court denied the p e t i t i o n . On J u n e 1 9 8 2 , d e f e n d a n t was r e l e a s e d 18, S t a t e P r i s o n on p a r o l e . f o r defendant's appears t e r m i n a t i o n of defendant seventy-four Missoula been granted of good time County sentence. Corrections Division, 1982, 2012. three It years, he began to the Department of defendant's obligation to According J e f f e r s o n County to t h e t e n - y e a r 21, approximately since Montana the projected d a t e was J u n e 2 0 , parole has days Institutions, A s o f J u l y 1, 1 9 8 2 , from t h e serving the s e n t e n c e was f u l f i l l e d o n A p r i l and he was d i s c h a r g e d d u e t o c o m p l e t i o n of h i s sen- tence. Defendant a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of denial District's of his petition for the F i f t h J u d i c i a l post-conviction relief. The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e : Whether t h e a p p e a l 1. defendant I 2. s petition Whether 1947, R.C.M., the from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s for District post-conviction Court d e n i a l of relief violated section (now c o d i f i e d as s e c t i o n 46-18-201, moot. is 95-2206, and A r t . MCA), 11, S e c . 1 7 , o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n by amending d e f e n d a n t ' s deferred sentence to i n c l u d e a mandatory two-year term a t t h e Warm Springs S t a t e Hospital. 3. Whether t h e i m p o s i t i o n of a mandatory two-year term a t W a r m S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l was n o t a c t u a l l y a c o n d i t i o n of deferred i m p o s i t i o n of sentence but r a t h e r a v a l i d penal the sen- tence. 4. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r - t a i n a s e c o n d r e v o c a t i o n m o t i o n on O c t o b e r 8 , already imposed a penal sentence on 1975, July a s it had 14, 1975. Respondent a r g u e s s i n c e d e f e n d a n t h a s a t t a c k e d o n l y t h e sent e n c e f r o m J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y t h a t h a s now e x p i r e d , moot. the appeal is The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t r e c e n t l y r u l e d upon t h i s i s s u e i n Lane v. Williams ( 1 9 8 2 ) , U.S. .- , 1 0 2 S.Ct. 1322, --- - L.Ed.2d - bargain with ---- . I n -- e , two d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d i n t o a p l e a Lan state-court prosecutors. The offense carried an i n d e t e r m i n a t e s e n t e n c e of i m p r i s o n m e n t and a m a n d a t o r y t h r e e - y e a r When t h e t w o d e f e n d a n t s p l e d g u i l t y , parole term. informed that t h e i r negotiated term. parole discharged parole. Both and When sentence defendants subsequently were defendants included t h e mandatory time prison, served violated the forced t h e y were n o t in conditions to were of their to p r i s o n return as f o r a w r i t of h a b e a s c o r p u s i n parole violators they petitioned F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t Court seeking t o e l i m i n a t e t h e mandatory p a r o l e term f r o m t h e i r s e n t e n c e s . t h a t had pled defendants anew, The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d s o u g h t to s e t a s i d e cases would their not their convictions and be moot as d e f e n d a n t s would t h e n be f r e e t o s t a n d t r i a l f o r t h e o f f e n s e and p o s s i b l y r e c e i v e greater sentences. However, defendants t h e i r s e n t e n c e s , w h i c h had e x p i r e d ceedings. s o u g h t o n l y to i n t h e c o u r s e of attack t h e i r pro- The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d : " S i n c e r e s p o n d e n t s e l e c t e d o n l y to a t t a c k t h e i r s e n t e n c e s , and s i n c e t h o s e s e n t e n c e s expired during the course of t h e s e proc e e d i n g s , t h i s case i s moot. 'Nullification o f a c o n v i c t i o n may h a v e i m p o r t a n t b e n e f i t s but urging i n a habeas f o r a defendant c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g t h e c o r r e c t i o n of a s e n t e n c e North a l r e a d y s e r v e d is a n o t h e r matter. ' C a r o l i n a v . R i c e , 404 U.S. 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 , 9 2 S . C t . 4 0 2 , 4 0 5 , 30 L.Ed.2d 413." 1 0 2 S.Ct. a t 1327. . .. In the present case as in Lane, supra, defendant is a t t e m p t i n g t o a t t a c k o n l y t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t a r o s e from h i s p l e a o f g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e o f c r i m i n a l s a l e of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s . explained above, considering t h e amount o f good As t i m e defendant h a s a c c u m u l a t e d w h i l e s e r v i n g t h e J e f f e r s o n County s e n t e n c e and t h e merged M i s s o u l a C o u n t y s e n t e n c e , t h e J e f f e r s o n County s e n - t e n c e h a s now e x p i r e d and d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p e a l i s moot. w i l l not Mont . -- c o n s i d e r moot p o i n t s . , S t a t e v. 599 P.2d 3 4 9 , 3 6 S t . R e p . upon the investigation report sentencing judge than (1979), ---- 1580. Defendant argues a previous ten-year pre-sentence Binzler T h i s Court sentence contained i n a would have would a greater two-year in£ l u e n c e sentence. However, a s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e is to be c o n c e r n e d p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e f a c t of a previous S e e s e c t i o n 46-18-501, any indication influenced by that the conviction, et seq., MCA. defendant I length not of the accompanying Here, t h e r e c o r d i s v o i d of Missoula s the sentence. County Jefferson sentence County was sentence. A s d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p e a l is now moot and a s t h e r e is n o t h i n g in t h e r e c o r d which r e f l e c t s d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e d a g r e a t e r s e n t e n c e in Missoula District County Court's due to denial the of c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f is a f f irmed W e concur: \ Jefferson defendant's . n I County sentence, petition for the post-
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.
