STATE v SPURLOCK v DONEY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12338 & 12339 I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O M N A A F H F OTN 1972 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - JAMES CONLEY SPURLOCK, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - LEONARD DONEY , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t 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, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Robert J. Campbell argued, Missoula, Montana. For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Jonathan B Smith, argued, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e r y General, Helena, Montana. R. D. Deschamps, 111, County Attorney, argued, Missoula, Montana. . Submitted: November 30, 1972 Decided: FEB 2 0 1973 X r . J u s t i c e Gene S , Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This a p p e a l i s taken from a judgment i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Missoula County e n t e r e d on a j u r y v e r d i c t c o n v i c t i n g Jarnes Conley Spurlock of f o u r c o u n t s of robbery and Leonard Edwin Doney of t h r e e c o u n t s of robbery. Spurlock was sentenced t o f i f t y y e a r s and Doney t o t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s i n t h e Montana s t a t e prison. 95-1506, R.C.M, The s t a t e employed t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 1947, a s t o both d e f e n d a n t s i.n s e e k i n g i n c r e a s e d punishment based on p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . The appeal was brought t o t h i s Court on a t r a n s c r i p t of t h e proceedings t a k e n p r i o r t o t r i a l and no t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t was f u r n i s h e d . The s o l e i s s u e r a i s e d i s whether t h e d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t s r p r e t r i a l motion f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e was an abuse of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n and a v i o l a t i o n of t h e r i g h t s guaranteed t o d e f e n d a n t s under t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of Montana. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t on January 2 8 , 1972, an Tnformation was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c h a r g i n g each defendant w i t h f o u r c o u n t s of robbery upon f o u r Missoula f i l l i n g s t a t i o n s committed on January 1 8 , 1972. D. R. Matthews, Esq., !4issoula P u b l i c Defender, was appointed by t h e c o u r t a s c o u n s e l and h e r e p r e s e n t e d b o t h d e f e n d a n t s i n a l l s t a g e s of p r e t r i a l proceedings. Both d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d p l e a s of n o t g u i l t y and t r i a l was s e t f o r May 4 , 1972. L J B a i l was f i x e d i n t h e amount $15,000 ( l a t e r reduced t o $12,500) f o r defendant Spurlock ~ dnd i n t h e amount o f $12,500 f o r defendant Doney. N e i t h e r de- fendant was a b l e t o p o s t b a i l . Defendant Doney r e q u e s t e d a p s y c h i a t r i c examination and w a s admitted t o t h e s t a t e h o s p i t a l a t Warm Springs on February 2 , 1972, remaining t h e r e about t h i r t y days. An examination was performed and a r e p o r t submitted t o t h e c o u r t . O March 13, 1972, defendant Spurlock f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t n of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of t r i a l judge Hon. Emmet Glore, which was The cause was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e c o u r t of Eon. E. granted. Gardner Brownlee. On A p r i l 5 , 1972, defendant Spurlock submitted motions f o r a p s y c h i a t r i c examination by a l o c a l p s y c h i a t r i s t and f o r separate counsel, Both motions were denied. Subsequent t e s t i - mony by Spurlock's w i f e i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had been t o Warm Springs f o r t r e a t m e n t and/or examination on some previous occasion and t h a t he d i d n o t wish t o r e t u r n t h e r e , On A p r i l 6 , 1972, defendant Doney p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t pro s e f o r a w r i t of habeas corpus based on v i o l a t i o n of h i s r i g h t s a t a p r e l i m i n a r y examination f o r probable cause. Judge Jack L. Green, s i t t i n g f o r Judge E. Gardner Brownlee, h e a r d t h e p e t i t i o n on A p r i l 6 , 1972, w i t h p e t i t i o n e r p r e s e n t i n c o u r t and r e p r e s e n t e d by p u b l i c defender D,R. Matthews, h i s a t t o r n e y , A f t e r argument t h e w r i t was denied. O May 3 , 1972, one day preceding t h e t r i a l d a t e , t h e n defendants through t h e i r appointed c o u n s e l , D. R. Matthews, e n t e r e d f o u r motions r e q u e s t i n g : 1. Withdraw1 of c o u r t appointed counsel. 2. Separate t r i a l s , 3, Separate counsel. 4. A continuance. The r e q u e s t e d continuance was f o r t h e claimed purpose of allowing t h e i r c o u n s e l time t o p r e p a r e t h e i r d e f e n s e , and t o o b t a i n a p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n f o r defendant Spurlock. The c o u r t denied a l l f o u r motions. However, p r i o r t o t r i a l on May 4 , 1972, t h e motion f o r withdrawal of counsel was g r a n t e d and Robert J, Campbell, Esq. was e n t e r e d a s c o u n s e l , In g r a n t i n g t h i s motion, t h e c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y questioned both defendants a f t e r making them aware t h a t t h e i r o t h e r motions ( i n c l u d i n g t h e motion f o r a continuance) would n o t b e be g r a n t e d , a s t o whether they would s t i l l p r e f e r t o have Robert J . Campbell s u b s t i t u t e d a s c o u n s e l r e p l a c i n g D , R , Matthews. s t a t e d they s o p r e f e r r e d . Both defendants The c o u r t then suggested t h a t Matthews remain t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e defense and r e q u e s t e d b o t h d e f e n d a n t s ' r permission b e f o r e M. Matthews was p e r m i t t e d t o l e a v e . Both defendants gave t h a t permission. A t t h e time t h e c o u r t was c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e q u e s t f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of c o u n s e l , M r . Matthews s t a t e d : a b s o l u t e l y nothing. "They have t o l d m e They w i l l n o t c o n f i d e i n me, t h e r e h a s been no communication a t a l l . " I n t h e i r a p p e a l b r i e f , defendants s t a t e d " P r i o r t o t r i a l t h e Defendants remained i n t h e Missoula County j a i l and sought p r i v a t e counsel a s b e s t they could." t h i s statement. The record does n o t support I t does n o t d i s c l o s e t h a t defendants o r anyone a c t i n g i n t h e i r b e h a l f , c o n t a c t e d o r were r e f u s e d by any a t t o r n e y p r i o r t o t h e i r c o n t a c t i n g M r . Campbell, who d i d t a k e t h e i r c a s e . I t does n o t d i s c l o s e t h a t defendants were r e f u s e d permission t o c o n t a c t any a t t o r n e y w h i l e they were i n j a i l , I t does d i s c l o s e t h a t M r , Campbell was c o n t a c t e d f o r t h e f i r s t time by Mrs. Spurl o c k a t 4:15 p.m. on May 3 , 1972, over t h r e e months a f t e r t h e arraignment of defendants and on t h e a f t e r n o o n b e f o r e t h e t r i a l date. Section 95-1708, s u b s e c t i o n s ( c ) and ( d ) , R.C.M. 1947, provide : "(c) A l l motions f o r a continuance a r e addressed t o t h e d i s c r e t j - o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and s h a l l b e considered i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e d i l i g e n c e shown on t h e p a r t of t h e movant. "(d) This s e c t i o n s h a l l b e c o n s t r u e d t o t h e end t h a t c r i m i n a l c a s e s a r e t r i e d w i t h due d i l i g e n c e consonant wit11 t h e r i g h t s of t h e defendant and t h e s t a t e t o a speedy t r i a l . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . ~ e f e n d a n t s ' r e f u s a l t o communicate w i t h t h e l r appointed counsel and t h e i r e l e v e n t h hour d i s m i s s a l of M r . Matthews and h i r i n g of M r . Campbell a f t e r a t h r e e month period d u r i n g which defendants were f u l l y aware of t h e d a t e s e t f o r t r i . a l , was n o t a,n e x e r c i s e of due d i l i g e n c e . The i n s t a n t c a s e i s r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from S t a t e v . B l a k e s l e e , 131 Mont, 4 7 , 306 P.2d 1103, r e l i e d upon by def e n d a n t s t o support t h e i r S i x t h Amendment ( l a c k of r i g h t t o counsel.) and Fourteenth Amendment ( l a c k o f due process) contentions. I n B l a k e s l e e , t h e c o u r t appointed counsel t h r e e days before the trial---but c o u n s e l withdrew. a f t e r Blakeslee's privately retained Here, defendants v o l u n t a r i l y dismissed ap- pointed counsel and r e t a i n e d p r i v a t e counsel a f t e r b e i n g made f u l l y aware t h a t no continuance would be g r a n t e d , In contrast t o Blakeslee and o t h e r c a s e s r e l i e d on i n t h i s appeal by def e n d a n t s , t h i s was a v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n d i r e c t l y i n t h e c o n t r o l of t h e accused. The United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e Montana Constit u t i o n e s t a b l i s h c e r t a i n r i g h t s , under law, f o r persons accused of a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e . One of t h e s e i s t h e r i g h t t o e f f e c t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by l e g a l c o u n s e l , W find the d i s t r i c t court e accorded t h e s e defendants t h a t r i g h t , The c o u r t appointed competent counsel t o r e p r e s e n t defendants and allowed them and t h e i r counsel t h r e e months t o p r e p a r e t h e i r c a s e , Numerous f e d e r a l d e c i s i o n s h o l d w i t h unanimity t h a t : "Although t h e a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p i s o r d i n a r i l y a p r i v a t e m a t t e r , a defendant does n o t have t h e u n b r i d l e d r L g h t t o d i s c h a r g e counsel on t h e eve of t r i a l fi * *. "In o r d e r t o work a d e l a y by a l a s t minute d i s charge of counsel t h e r e must e x i s t e x c e p t i o n a l circumstances." United S t a t e s v . Grow, 394 F.2d 182, 209, c e r t . den, 393 U,S, 840, 89 S.Ct. 118, 21 L ed 2d I l l . See a l s o : Kates v. Nelson, 435 F,2d 1085 ( 9 t h C i r , 1970) ; Harper v. United S t a t e s , 143 F,2d 795 ( 8 t h C i r , 1944). For c o l l a t e r a l t e x t r e f e r e n c e s see a n n o t a t i o n s following s e c t i o n 95-1708, R,C.M. 1947; 66 ALR2d 298, 304, 54(a). I n S t a t e v. Forsness, St.Rep. Mont . , 495 P,2d 176, 29 232, 236, a c a s e analogous t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e on t h e i s s u e of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t of an accused t o c o u n s e l , t h i s Court s t a t e d : " e a g r e e w i t h counsel f o r defendant t h a t t h e W r i g h t t o be r e p r e s e n t e d by counsel i n a c r i m i n a l proceeding i s a fundamental r i g h t e s s e n t i a l t o c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e . [ C i t i n g c a s e s ] However, we do n o t a g r e e w i t h defendant s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he can d i s m i s s h i s c o u n s e l j u s t b e f o r e going t o t r i a l , a f t e r counsel had a d e a u a t e l v r e ~ r e s e n t e dhim f o r s e v e r a l months, and tden ona app;?al a l l e g e h i s b a s i c c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s have been v i o l a t e d . S e v e r a l r e c e n t f e d e r a l c a s e s have covered t h i s argument f u l l y . [ C i t i n g c a s e s 1. " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) Where t h e r e i s an a l l e g e d abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n denying a motion f o r a continuance, t h e burden of proof on a p p e a l i s upon t h e c l a i m a n t t o make a c l e a r showing of such abuse, S t a t e v. Howard, 30 Mont. 518, 77 P. 50; S t a t e v. C o l l i n s , 88 Mont, 514, 294 P. 957; S t a t e v . Olsen, 152 Mont. 1, 445 P,2d 926. // Here, defendants have n o t s u s t a i n e d t h a t burden. Chief J u s t i c e /' ~ s s b c i a t e u s t i c e s . I J

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.