STATE v GRIFFIN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12784 I N THE SUPKEME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA F 1975 THE STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and ~ e s p o n d e n t , -vs - FREDDIE STARR GRIFFIN, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . District Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Paul H a t f i e l d , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: Counsel of Record : For A p p e l l a n t : Dennis Conner argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y General, He1 ena, Montana C a r l J. K r a f t argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , Great F a l l s , Montana Michael T. Greely, appeared, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: January 14, 1975 Decided : MAY Filed: - :yibj 5 ~tj/S Clerk - 6 1975 Mr. ~ u s t i c eGene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of c o n v i c t i o n f o r t h e s a l e of dangerous drugs 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 , Cascade County. Defendant Freddie S t a r r G r i f f i n was charged i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on August 31, 1973, on Count I w i t h t h e crime of t h e s a l e of dangerous drugs and on Court I1 w i t h a s s a u l t on a j u v e n i l e boy w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o commit a f e l o n y , t o - w i t : Infamous crime a g a i n s t n a t u r e . Court appointed c o u n s e l appeared w i t h defendant and he was a r r a i g n e d b e f o r e Hon. Truman Bradford on September 5 , 1973. A p l e a of n o t g u i l t y was e n t e r e d and t r i a l was s e t f o r September 24, 1973 a t t h e hour of 9:30 a.m. The s t a t e on September 10, 1973 f i l e d n o t i c e of i n t e n t t o seek i n c r e a s e d punishment pursuant t o s e c t i o n 95-1506, R.C.M. 1947, a s a p r i o r convicted f e l o n pursuant t o s e c t i o n 94-4713, R.C.M. 1947. The s t a t e l i s t e d 8 p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s of robbery and b u r g l a r y i n t h e s t a t e s of C a l i f o r n i a , Nevada and Montana on which defendant was sentenced t o p r i s o n on 6 , and given probat i o n on 2. The 1957 Montana robbery c o n v i c t i o n i n d i c a t e s a t e n y e a r sentence a t Deer Lodge, Montana. O September 19, 1973 n defendant f i l e d pro s e t h r e e handwritten motions i n good and a c c e p t a b l e form w i t h t h e c o u r t : (1) That t h e $25,000 b a i l was e x c e s s i v e and h e , being o f Indian blood and poor, suggested b a i l of $10,000 t o uphold t h e f a i r n e s s of t h e c o u r t t o a l l concerned. (2) That d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u r t appointed a t t o r n e y be dismissed. That defendant i s t o r e t a i n counsel of h i s c h o i c e , a l l e g i n g i t imperative t h e r e q u e s t be granted a s soon a s p o s s i b l e because he had been i n custody f o u r weeks and had had one c o u r t appearance w i t h t h e c o u r t appointed counsel. (3) A motion t o d i s q u a l i f y Judge Bradford on t h e grounds t h a t v a r i o u s sources had informed him t h a t Hon. Bradford i s p r e j u d i c e d a g a i n s t I n d i a n s and defendant i s an American I n d i a n ; t h a t Judge Bradford be dismissed from t h e c a s e , w i t h no d i s r e s p e c t , b u t only a s a w e l l i n t e n t i o n e d r e q u e s t . Hon. Truman Bradford heard t h e motions on September 19, 1973. The c o u r t g r a n t e d defendant on an o r d e r t o show c a u s e u n t i l September 21, 1973 t o hear t h e motion f o r d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of t h e judge f o r a c t u a l b i a s ; t h e c o u r t f u r t h e r gave defendant u n t i l September 20, 1973, a t 5 p.m., t o notify the court a s t o whether he had r e t a i n e d h i s own counsel. O September 21, 1973, n Hon. Paul H a t f i e l d , s i t t i n g f o r Judge Bradford, and defendant appearing w i t h o r i g i n a l c o u r t appointed c o u n s e l , g r a n t e d t h e motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of c o u n s e l , a p u b l i c d e f e n d e r , a s defendant had no funds f o r p r i v a t e counsel. The remaining two pro s e motions were n o t a c t e d on and were s t r i c k e n a t t h a t time; t h e c o u r t r u l i n g defendant would have t o a c t through counsel. Hon. Robert Nelson heard t h e motion t o d i s q u a l i f y Hon. Truman Bradf o r d f o r b i a s on September 21, 1973, defendant appeared i n c o u r t w i t h t h e second p u b l i c defender. r e s e t f o r November 26, 1973. Notion was denied and t r i a l O September 26, 1973, new n counsel f i l e d d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of Judge Bradford under t h e statute. Judge Paul H a t f i e l d accepted j u r i s d i c t i o n on September 28, 1973 and on t h e same day Judge H a t f i e l d reduced bond t o t h e sum o f $2,000. The bond was approved October 1 5 , 1973, and defendant was r e l e a s e d . New counsel f i l e d and argued a motion t o suppress evidence which t h e c o u r t denied on November 28, 1973 a f t e r b r i e f s had been filed. Meantime, t h e November 26, 1973 t r i a l d a t e had been vacated. 1974. O December 5 , 1973, t r i a l d a t e was s e t f o r January 14, n O December 1 0 , 1973, motion was f i l e d by second c o u r t n appointed counsel t o be r e l i e v e d a s c o u n s e l , a t d e f e n d a n t ' s r e quest. Defendant appeared w i t h paid counsel on December 12 and t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e motion f o r t h e p u b l i c defender t o withdraw. Paid counsel t h e n , on January 7 , 1974 on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l grounds, f i l e d motions f o r d i s m i s s a l and continuance. O n January 1 0 , 1974 h e a r i n g was had, t h e motions denied, and t r i a l r e s e t f o r January 15, 1974. O January 14 defendant, w i t h p a i d c o u n s e l , moved t h e n c o u r t t o withdraw t h e p l e a of n o t g u i l t y t o t h e charge of s a l e of dangerous drugs and e n t e r a p l e a of g u i l t y . Court s e t t h e d a t e f o r s e n t e n c i n g a s February 1 4 , 1974, t o allow time f o r presentence investigation. Defendant continued on bond. O February 14 d e f e n d a n t ' s paid counsel appeared w i t h a n deputy county a t t o r n e y b u t defendant f a i l e d t o appear and a bench warrant of a r r e s t was i s s u e d . Defendant was l a t e r a r r e s t e d i n C a l i f o r n i a , r e t u r n e d t o Montana, and appeared w i t h paid counsel on March 27, 1974. The c o u r t g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o con- t i n u e s e n t e n c i n g u n t i l A p r i l 3 , 1974 a t 2 p.m. O A p r i l 3 , 1974, n a t 11:40 a.m. defendant f i l e d pro s e a 5 page handwritten motion and b r i e f t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a and r e q u e s t e d he be given ample time t o r e t a i n a n o t h e r a t t o r n e y and prepare f o r t r i a l . motion was aimed g e n e r a l l y a t h i s p a i d c o u n s e l . His He a l l e g e d he was coerced and t h r e a t e n e d by h i s paid counsel and t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y w i t h imprisonment of l e n g t h y It endurance"; t h a t he was f o r c e d t o change h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e ; t h a t he was promised a term of s i x months i n t h e county j a i l f o r h i s p l e a , a n d t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e a s s a u l t charge and p e t i t i o n f o r i n c r e a s e d punishment. t h e motion a t 2 p.m. The t r i a l judge, Hon. Paul H a t f i e l d , heard t h a t day, A p r i l 3 , 1974, denied t h e motion t o withdraw d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a , and pronounced s e n t e n c e , i . e . y e a r s a t hard l a b o r . ten He f u r t h e r g r a n t e d p a i d c o u n s e l ' s r e q u e s t t o be r e l i e v e d of f u r t h e r o b l i g a t i o n a s counsel and appointed t h e p u b l i c defender a s c o u n s e l f o r defendant f o r appeal. O A p r i l 5 , 1974 t h e s t a t e moved f o r , and was g r a n t e d , n d i s m i s s a l of t h e remaining charges a g a i n s t defendant. Judge H a t f i e l d granted a p e t i t i o n by defendant (through c o u n s e l ) t o proceed w i t h an a p p e a l i n forma p a u p e r i s and t h a t he be f u r n i s h e d a transcript. Counsel f i l e d n o t i c e of a p p e a l on b e h a l f of defendant. I n t h e meantime, defendant proceeded pro s e w i t h a handwritten 5 page motion t o v a c a t e t h e sentence of t h e t r i a l c o u r t which he based, i n t h e main, on a l l e g e d : undue i n f l u e n c e by people who were f i n a n c i a l l y involved when he v i o l a t e d h i s bond agreement; l a c k of a s s i s t a n c e a t s e n t e n c i n g ; t h r e a t s by t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y ; and g e n e r a l VIP p r e s s u r e by people of g r e a t i n f l u e n c e and p r e s t i g e . requesting a A s e p a r a t e motion was f i l e d 11 s p e c i f i c " a t t o r n e y by name t o r e p l a c e t h e a t t o r n e y a s s i g n e d t o him by t h e c o u r t . Defendant was assigned new counsel who appears on t h i s a p p e a l i n h i s b e h a l f b u t he i s n o t t h e counsel d e s i g n a t e d i n h i s pro s e motion t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Two i s s u e s a r e presented t o t h i s Court f o r review: 1. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n a c c e p t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a of g u i l t y w i t h o u t f i r s t determining t h a t t h e p l e a was made v o l u n t a r i l y and w i t h an understanding of t h e charge? 2. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o withdraw h i s p l e a of g u i l t y ? Defendant a l l e g e s t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n a c c e p t i n g h i s p l e a of g u i l t y without f i r s t determining i f t h e p l e a was made volunt a r i l y and w i t h an understanding of t h e charge. Defendant plead g u i l t y on January 1 4 , 1974 t o t h e charge of s a l e s of dangerous drugs b e f o r e d i s t r i c t judge Hon. Paul H a t f i e l d . Defendant a l - l e g e s t h a t a t t h e time t h e judge d i d n o t a d v i s e him o f h i s r i g h t s n o r of t h e p o s s i b l e sentence he could r e c e i v e r e s u l t i n g from h i s p l e a of g u i l t y . Defendant c i t e s two s t a t u t e s which he r e l i e s upon t o s u p p o r t h i s argument. R.C.M. (1) Section 95-1606, 1947, which r e a d s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 11 Procedure on arraignment. The arraignment i n any c o u r t i n t h i s s t a t e must be conducted i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner : 11 *** (e) The c o u r t may r e f u s e t o a c c e p t a p l e a of g u i l t y and s h a l l n o t a c c e p t t h e p l e a of g u i l t y without f i r s t determining t h a t t h e p l e a i s v o l u n t a r y w i t h an understanding of t h e charge. 11 (2) Section 95-1902, R.C.M. 1947, which r e a d s : "Plea of g p i l t y . Before 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 accepted when: "(a) t h e defendant e n t e r s a p l e a of g u i l t y i n open c o u r t ; and "(b) t h e c o u r t has informed t h e defendant of t h e consequences of h i s p l e a and of t h e maximum p e n a l t y provided by law which may be imposed upon acceptance of such p l e a . " A t any time b e f o r e o r a f t e r judgment t h e c o u r t may f o r good cause shown permit t h e p l e a of g u i l t y t o be withdrawn and a p l e a of n o t g u i l t y substituted. II A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e t h e two s t a t u t e s c i t e d t o t h e Court and h e r e t o f o r e quoted. Each i s p r o p e r l y i d e n t i f i e d and i s designed t o c o n t r o l i t s own s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n i n t h e c r i m i n a l procedural process. I f i t were o t h e r w i s e , we would n o t have two s t a t u t e s on t h e same s u b j e c t m a t t e r . It would appear from t h e r e c o r d h e r e t h a t we a r e only concerned w i t h s e c t i o n 95-1902, R.C.M. 1947. Defendant p o i n t s o u t t h a t s e c t i o n 95-1902, R.C.M. 1947, was taken from t h e I l l i n o i s Code of Criminal Procedure, Chap. 38, s e c t i o n 115-2, and c i t e s People v. Washington, 5 I11.2d 58, 124 N.E.2d 890, a s support f o r h i s p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e judge must inform t h e defendant of h i s r i g h t s and t h e consequences of a g u i l t y p l e a b e f o r e he can a c c e p t a g u i l t y p l e a from defendant. I n Washington t h e record did n o t contain a statement by t h e c o u r t a d v i s i n g defendant, who was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l , of t h e e f f e c t of h i s p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h e charge of murder. judgment was r e v e r s e d and remanded on t h e b a s i s of I l l i n o i s Revised S t a t u t e s 1953, Chap. 38, par. 732, which s t a t e s : 1I I n c a s e s where t h e p a r t y p l e a d s ' g u i l t y ' , such plea s h a l l not be entered u n t i l t h e court s h a l l have f u l l y explained t o t h e accused t h e consequences of e n t e r i n g such p l e a ; a f t e r which, i f t h e p a r t y p e r s i s t s i n pleading ' g u i l t y ' , such p l e a s h a l l be r e c e i v e d and recorded, and t h e c o u r t s h a l l proceed t o r e n d e r judgment and execution t h e r e o n , a s i f he had been found g u i l t y by a j u r y . " The It was a l s o r e v e r s e d and remanded on Court Rule 27A ( I l l , Rev.Stat. 1953, Chap. 110, par. 259.27a) which provides i n p a r t : "The i n q u i r i e s o f t h e c o u r t , and t h e answers o f t h e defendant t o determine whether t h e accused understands h i s r i g h t s t o be r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l , and comprehends t h e n a t u r e of t h e crime w i t h which he i s charged, and t h e punishment t h e r e o f f i x e d by law, s h a l l be r e c i t e d i n , and become a p a r t of t h e common law r e c o r d i n t h e c a s e * * *." Montana does n o t have a s i m i l a r r u l e t o t h e I l l i n o i s Rule 27A n o r a s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, 732. Chap. 38, par. T h e i r combined e f f e c t i s d i f f e r e n t than ~ o n t a n a ' ss e c t i o n 95-1902, R,.C.M. 1947. Therefore Washington i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e here. I n h i s b r i e f , defendant c a l l s t o t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n : "It i s important t o n o t e a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t two a f f i d a v i t s appear i n t h e Court f i l e , p r e s e n t l y b e f o r e t h e Supreme Court. wherein P e t i t i o n e r h a s submitted a motion t o v a c a t e h i s skntence and a motion t o withdraw h i s p l e a of I nuiltv'. U n t i l t h e s e a f f i d a v i t s a r e opposed by c o u n t e r a z f i d a b i t s , e v e r y t h i n g must b e assumed t r u e &hich i s contained t h e r e i n . S t a t e v. M c A l l i s t e r , s u p r a , a t 353. I1 (Emphasis added) as A review of t h e s e two pro s e motions demonstrates t h e y a r e n o t a f f i d a v i t s and a r e n o t v e r i f i e d o r sworn t o i n any r e s p e c t . A review of t h e e n t i r e c o u r t f i l e d i s c l o s e s d e f e n d a n t ' s e a r l i e r pro s e pleadings were sworn t o b e f o r e deputy s h e r i f f Richard W. Donovan, a n o t a r y p u b l i c , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t a f f i d a v i t s was a v a i l a b l e t o persons confined i n t h e Cascade county j a i l . I n any c a s e S t a t e v. M c A l l i s t e r , 96 Mont, 348, 353, 30 P.2d 821 (1934), no l o n g e r c o n t r o l s on t h a t p o i n t i n t h o s e a b s o l u t e terms s i n c e t h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n S t a t e v. Pelke, 143 Mont. 262, 268, 389 P.2d 164, which s t a t e d : "* * * we do n o t t r e a t S t a t e v. M c A l l i s t e r , s u p r a , Ultias setting forth the inflexible rule mately much l a t i t u d e must be given t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge, who has a f i r s t hand acquaintance w i t h t h e circumstances of t h e c a s e * * *. * * *." Pelke reached t h e fundamental purpose of t h e s e r u l e s : "* * * a p l e a of g u i l t y need be deemed i n v o l u n t a r y only when i t appears t h a t t h e defendant was l a b o r i n g under such a s t r o n g inducement, fundamental mistake; o r s e r i o u s mental c o n d i t i o n , t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s he may have pleaded g u i l t y t o a crime of which he i s innocent." (Emphasis added). Defendant c i t e s Boykin v. A.labama, 395 U. S. 238, 239, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L ed 2d 274, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a g u i l t y p l e a cannot be presumed t o b e v o l u n t a r y where: II So f a r a s t h e r e c o r d shows, t h e [ t r i a l ] judge asked no q u e s t i o n s of [defendant] concerning h i s p l e a , and [defendant] d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e c o u r t . lI Defendant a l l e g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t must employ t h e utmost s o l i c i t u d e of which c o u r t s a r e capable i n canvassing t h e matter w i t h t h e accused t o make s u r e he has f u l l understanding of what t h e p l e a connotes and of i t s consequences. I n Boykin t h e c o u r t s e t down t h r e e a r e a s of i n q u i r y (1) self-incrimination, (2) r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , and (3) r i g h t t o confront accusers. Defendant i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e a r g u e s t h a t - t h e s e procedural s t e p s announced i n Boykin a r e mandatory i n a l l c a s e s under any c o n d i t i o n s . I n a c a s e t r i e d i n t h e Cascade County d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S t a t e v. Wilkins, a murder c a s e , a p l e a change was involved d u r i n g t r i a l . Wilkins f i l e d a w r i t of habeas corpus i n t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Great F a l l s D i v i s i o n , C i v i l No. 3167, 30 St.Rep. and an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e q u e s t i o n : 1207, Is a g u i l t y plea v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y made under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S . C t . 1709, 23 Ta ed 2d 274 (1969) and c a s e s f o l l o w i n g , i f t h e defendant a t t h e time o f p l e a d i n g g u i l t y i s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y advised by t h e S t a t e c o u r t judge that by p l e a d i n g g u i l t y he w i l l waive h i s p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t s e l f i n c r i m i n a t i o n , h i s r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , and h i s r i g h t t o confront h i s accusers? The f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n denying t h e p e t i t i o n on December 20, 1973, determined t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r language i n Boykin was merely a d v i s o r y and concluded t h a t a p l e a could be v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y made without s p e c i f i c a r t i c u l a t i o n of t h e t h r e e Boykin r i g h t s , a s long a s t h e c o u r t p a s s i n g on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t , be a b l e t o f i n d from t h e whole r e c o r d b e f o r e i t , without a i d of presumptions, t h a t a p l e a of g u i l t y was v o l u n t a r i l y made. 9 1 November 6 , 1974, t h e Ninth C i r c u i t Court of Appeals, x by o p i n i o n , Wilkins v. Erickson, 505 F.2d 761, 763, a f f i r m e d t h e federal d i s t r i c t court. A f t e r s e t t i n g o u t t h e l e g a l q u e s t i o n con- c e r n i n g t h e t h r e e a r e a s of i n q u i r y i n Boykin, t h e Court observed: "Wilkins r e l i e s on t h e f o l l o w i n g language from Boykin : 11 1 W cannot presume a waiver of t h e s e e t h r e e i m o r t a n t f e d e r a l r i g h t s from a s i l e n t record. I R Then t h e c o u r t pointed out t h a t Boykin involved an arraignment on f i v e counts of robbery and t h e c o u r t asked no q u e s t i o n s , and t h e defendant d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e c o u r t - - - t h e silent. record w a s The c o u r t went on t o s a y : II The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n , however, i s supported by Supreme Court d e c i s i o n s subsequent t o Boykin and s e v e r a l c i r c u i t s . The r i g i d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Boykin urged by Wilkins has n o t been adopted by t h e Supreme Court i n subsequent d e c i s i o n s on volun t a r i n e s s of g u i l t y p l e a s . I n Brady v. United S t a t e s , U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747, (1970), t h e Court c i t i n g Boykin, upheld a g u i l t y p l e a a s v o l u n t a r and i n t e l l i g e n t even though defendant had n o t been s~ecificallv advised of t h e t h r e e r i g h t s d i s c u s s e d i n ~ b y k i n . s he Brady Court c l a r i f i e d kin by s t a t i n g , ' [ t l h e new element added i n Boykin was t h e requirement t h a t t h e r e c o r d must a f f i r m a t i v e l y d i s c l o s e t h a t a defendant who pleaded g u i l t y e n t e r e d h i s plea unders t a n d i n g l y and v o l u n t a r i l y . ' 3 9 7 U.S. a t 747-748 fn.4. 90 S.Ct. a t 1468. I n North C a r o l i n a v. A l f o r d , 400 U.S. 25,31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 1 6 , 4 (1970), t h e Court s t a t e d t h a t i n determining t h e v a l i d i t y of g u i l t y p l e a s t h e I s t a n d a r d was and remains whether t h e plea r e p r e s e n t s a v o l u n t a r y and i n t e l l i g e n t c h o i c e amon t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s of a c t i o n open t o t h e defendant S p e c i f i c a r t i c u l a t i o n of t h e Boykin r i g h t s i s n o t t h e s i n e qua non of a v a l i d g u i l t y p l e a . "The Ninth C i r c u i t has a p p a r e n t l y n o t passed on t h e q u e s t i o n . Accordingly, we hold t h a t Boykin does n o t r e q u i r e s p e c i f i c a r t i c u l a t i o n of t h e above mentioned t h r e e r i g h t s i n a s t a t e proceeding. Brady v. United S t a t e s 397 U.S. a t 747-748 J C JX and c a s e s supra." (Emphasis added). * I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s from arraignment on t h e drug charge i n t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e peace c o u r t , arraignment i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on t h e m u l t i p l e c h a r g e s , t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n pro s e by defendant throughout t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d , and t h e d i s c h a r g e of c o u n s e l each time i t appeared t h e c a s e would b e brought on f o r t r i a l , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e r e p e a t e d r e f e r e n c e s t o "plea bargaining" each time, would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e g u i l t y p l e a was e n t e r e d w i t h f u l l understanding of t h e c h a r g e , v o l u n t a r i l y made and w i t h f u l l a p p r e c i a t i o n of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s and p o s s i b l e p e n a l t y , w i t h o u t i n d u l g i n g i n presumptions. Cer- t a i n l y a more i n depth examination by t h e c o u r t i s d e s i r a b l e and mandatory i n c a s e s where t h e r e c o r d r e q u i r e s i t . Each c a s e must b e examined on i t s own r e c o r d and i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a r t i c u l a t e a t t h e time of t h e p l e a change on t h e m a t t e r s c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 95-1902(b), R.C.M. 1947, does n o t amount t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . Defendant's second i s s u e on review concerns t h e f a i l u r e of t h e t r i a l judge t o permit defendant t o withdraw h i s p l e a s of g u i l t y on t h e day s e t f o r s e n t e n c e , A p r i l 3 , 1974, based on pro h e r e t o f o r e s e t f o r t h Those motions s e motions f i l e d t h a t daylamount t o a v i t r i o l i c a t t a c k on h i s p a i d c o u n s e l , t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y , and t h e t r i a l judge and a pleading of proof of h i s innocence a s t h e r e s u l t of a polygraph examination, administered by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s ; and proclaiming he had been promised a s i x month county j a i l term i n exchange f o r a p l e a of g u i l t y t o possession of drugs. Defendant a t t h i s p o i n t had s u f f e r e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e e r o s i o n of h i s c r e d i b i l i t y . The t r i a l judge was i n possession of t h e presentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n t a i n i n g t h e r e s u l t s of t h e polygraph examination, which, j u s t t o demonstrate l a c k of c r e d i b i l i t y , i s r e p o r t e d h e r e t o c o n t a i n t h e opinion o f t h e o p e r a t o r t h a t defendant d i d g i v e marijuana t o t h e v i c t i m , d i d f o r c e t h e v i c t i m t o remove c l o t h e s and d i d f o r c e v i c t i m t o have sex. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e paid counsel and t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y , b o t h competent and c r e d i b l e o f f i c e r s of t h e c o u r t , denied t h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s i n open c o u r t a s they p e r t a i n e d t o them i n d i v i d u a l l y and t o t h e circumstances g e n e r a l l y a s s e r t e d by defendant. The r e c o r d does i n d i c a t e t h e r e were t h r e e s e p a r a t e t i m e s t h e s t a t e was r e a d y f o r t r i a l and each time new c o u n s e l was obt a i n e d and defendant e n t e r e d i n t o p l e a b a r g a i n i n g , a l l a t t h e r e q u e s t of defendant. The t r i a l judge admits he was a g r e e a b l e t o a l i g h t e r s e n t e n c e t o a v o i d exposing t h e j u v e n i l e boy t o t h e p u b l i c view on t h e t r i a l of t h e s e x crime. N one b u t defendant o e v e r mentioned a r e d u c t i o n i n s e n t e n c e t o s i x months i n t h e county jail. The maximum exposure on c o n v i c t i o n of t h e two crimes charged w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n f o r i n c r e a s e d punishment c o u l d be two l i f e sentences. A t s e n t e n c i n g t h e judge asked defendant i f he would l i k e t o t e s t i f y i n h i s own b e h a l f and r e c e i v e d t h i s r e s p o n s e : "MR. GRIFFIN: Well, your honor, I h a v e n ' t d i s cussed any s i t u t a t i o n of s e n t e n c i n g w i t h m f a m i l y , y because t h e y a r e under t h e i m p r e s s i o n , j u s t l i k e me, t h a t I would g e t a b r e a k i n a w h i t e man s c o u r t ----- "THE COURT: You have had l o t s of b r e a k s i n t h i s case----- "MR. GRIFFIN: But I am n o t going t o g e t no b r e a k i n a w h i t e man's c o u r t , I can s e e t h a t , anyway, because I am y an I n d i a n , and you a r e wrong, and I was wrong i n m i m p r e s s i o n , and t h a t ' s a l l I can s a y about t h e whole t h i n g . "THE COURT: You d o n ' t wish t o p r e s e n t any f u r t h e r testimony w i t h r e g a r d t o m i t i g a t i o n o f s e n t e n c e ? "MR. GRIFFIN: There i s n ' t a n y t h i n g e l s e t h a t would h e l p , because everybody e l s e has t h e i r mind made up a g a i n s t me. 11 The t r i a l judge imposed a t e n y e a r s e n t e n c e . d i s m i s s e d a l l remaining c h a r g e s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t . The s t a t e The e n t i r e argument based on t h e r e c o r d must be t h e c o n n o t a t i o n of " l i g h t sentence". The t r i a l judge has complete d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r , s e c t i o n 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947, and must have f e l t t h a t " l i g h t " i s viewed i n r e l a t i o n t o " p o s s i b l e l ' . Viewed i n t h i s c o n t e x t we do n o t f i n d an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . A s this Court s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. Nance, 120 Mont. 152, 166, 184 P.2d 554: 11 I t w i l l n o t lend i t s a s s i s t a n c e t o an accused criminal i n escaping the obligations of h i s agreement a f t e r a c c e p t i n g t h e b e n e f i t s t h e r e o f . See a l s o : " S t a t e v. S c a l i s e , 131 Monte 238, 309 P.2d 1010. The judgment of the district coufze is affirmed. / We Concur: ---.&--------d,------------------ Chief Justice L' Justices. - "2 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.