STATE EX REL LINTZ v DISTRICT COU

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12304 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN THE STATE O M N A A e x r e l . CHING WENKE LINTZ, F OTN Petitioner, DISTRICT COURT O THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT F OF THE STATE O MONTANPs, F Respondent. @r3-g Pnal Proceedings. Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : David Astle a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana 59901. P a t r i c k S p r i n g e r a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana 59901. F o r Respondent : H. James Oleson, a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e l l , Montana 59901. Robert t. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montzna 5 9 6 0 l . Submitted: Decided : Filed : J u n e 2 1 , 1972 $UN 2 9 4972 Per Curiam: This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding brought by r e l a t o r a s a p e t i t i o n f o r a post-conviction hearing, Upon h e a r i n g t h e p e t i t i o n ex p a r t e , t h i s Court g r a n t e d an o r d e r t o show cause d i r e c t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e e l e v e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , t h e Hon. Robert S. I c e l l e r , p r e s i d i n g . Return was made, i n c l u d i n g a t r a n s - c r i p t of h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . A motion t o quash was made and o r a l argument had. B r i e f l y , p e t i t i o n e r , 21 y e a r s of a g e , was a r r e s t e d f o r t h e c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous d r u g s , a f e l o n y . Upon a r r a i g n - ment he p l e a d n o t g u i l t y , s u b s e q u e n t l y changed t o a g u i l t y p l e a . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on " m i t i g a t i o n o r a g g r a v a t i o n of sentence'' on May 1 7 , 1972. Defendant was g r a n t e d a d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e f o r a p e r i o d of t h r e e y e a r s i n an o r d e r s e t t i n g f o r t h what we w i l l term "usual c o n d i t i o n s ' ' . Defendant had o r a l l y agreed t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e c o u r t and law enforcement o f f i c i a l s . I n h i s a r r e s t and t h e subsequent i n v e s t i g a t i o n , defendant had v o l u n t a r i l y l e d o f f i c e r s t o o t h e r d r u g s , marihuana, c o c a i n e and P.C.P. IIe had s o l d twelve l i d s of marihuana. He claimed t h e cache of o t h e r drugs belonged t o one Bristow. A t t h e p r e s e n t e n c e h e a r i n g , under o a t h , defendant t o l d one s t o r y , t h e d e t a i l s of which a r e n o t of g r e a t importance h e r e , b u t which were b e l i e v e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . A t t h e subsequent t r i a l of t h e h e r e t o f o r e mentioned Bristow, defendant t o l d a different story perjured himself. which convinced t h e c o u r t t h a t he had p r e v i o u s l y He t h e n r e f u s e d t o answer f o r f e a r o f f u r t h e r i n c r i m i n a t i n g himself---something presentence hearing. t h a t he did not r a i s e a t t h e The t r i a l judge i n h i s r e t u r n c h a r a c t e r i z e s d e f e n d a n t ' s testimony a t t h e Bristow t r i a l a s a " f a r c e , a sham"; and, t h a t h i s l a c k of memory was a " p a l p a b l e l i e " and h e made a II mockery" of t h e c o u r t . A r e a d i n g o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t by t h i s Court r e v e a l s t h e c h a r a c L e r i z a t i o n s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o be a p t . The defendant had c l e a r l y deceived and m i s r e p r e s e n t e d m a t t e r s t o o b t a i n a d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e . A p e t i t i o n f o r r e v o c a t i o n of c h a t d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e was made, a h e a r i n g was h e l d , and t h e s t a t u t o r y presumption of a d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of sencence was c l e a r l y r e b u t t e d . The t r i a l c o u r t sentenced defendant t o f i f t e e n y e a r s . W a r e informed t h a t an a p p e a l i s b e i n g taken s o t h a t e e r r o r s , i f any, may be reviewed i n t h e normal a p p e a l p r o c e s s . A f t e r reviewing t h e r e c o r d , we do n o t f i n d any abuse of d i s c r e t i o n s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h i s Court t o t a k e o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t h i s time. Accordingly, t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e p r e v i o u s l y g r a n t e d i s quashed. R e l a t o r i n h i s p e t i t i o n a l s o seeks r e l i e f by way of s t a y o f e x e c u t i o n of t h e s e n t e n c e , pending a p p e a l . a t t h i s time w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e . W deny t h a t r e l i e f e

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.