STATE v PEPPERLING
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13482 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA F 1978 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsRICHARD CLARENCE PEPPERLING, 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 Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : R i c h a r d P e p p e r l i n g , P r o S e , Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Harold F. H a n s e r , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana - - S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : Decided : JUL 26 3$M May 9 , 1978 J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court Mr. . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by t h e d e f e n d a n t R i c h a r d C l a r e n c e P e p p e r l i n g from a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, on J u l y 2 , 1976, denying t h e motion of t h e a p p e l l a n t P e p p e r l i n g t o w i t h draw h i s g u i l t y p l e a and t o v a c a t e h i s s e n t e n c e . His g u i l t y p l e a was made on November 5 , 1975 t o a c h a r g e of b u r g l a r y w i t h i n c r e a s e d punishment, and a s e n t e n c e of 20 y e a r s w a s g i v e n t o him as a r e s u l t of s a i d p l e a . T h i s c a s e come on r e g u l a r l y f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i t h o u t o r a l argument under t h e I n t e r n a l O p e r a t i n g Rules of t h i s Court. On August 22, 1975, a n i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t , c h a r g i n g him w i t h t h e c r i m e of b u r g l a r y of t h e F r a t e r n a l Order of E a g l e s b u i l d i n g l o c a t e d i n L a u r e l , Montana. Under s e c t i o n 94-6-204(1), R.C.M. 1947, a t t h e t i m e of h i s a r r a i g n m e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t was s e r v e d i n open c o u r t by t h e county a t t o r n e y w i t h a N o t i c e t o I n c r e a s e Punishment, i n which n o t i c e t h e d e f e n d a n t was informed t h a t t h e S t a t e of Montana would s e e k i n c r e a s e d punishment of t h e d e f e n d a n t a s a p r i o r c o n v i c t e d f e l o n , on two p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i o n s , o n e f o r g r a n d l a r c e n y committed i n 1971, and o n e f o r b u r g l a r y committed i n 1972. A t t h e t i m e of h i s a r r a i g n m e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t informed t h e court t h a t h e w a s i n d i g e n t . Accordingly, t h e c o u r t a p p o i n t e d Michael Whalen, a n a t t o r n e y i n B i l l i n g s , o n e of t h r e e who a c t a s p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s i n t h a t c o u r t , t o r e p r e s e n t defendant i n t h i s case. Defendant t o l d t h e c o u r t t h a t of t h e t h r e e a t t o r n e y s t h e n employed by t h e c o u n t y a s p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s , Michael Whalen, ~ o h n Adams, and R u s s e l l F i l l n e r , h e would p r e f e r n o t t o have e i t h e r M r . Whalen o r M r . Adams a p p o i n t e d . he c o u r t f i r s t a p p o i n t e d M r . F i l l n e r t o r e p r e s e n t him and t h e n l e a r n e d t h a t M r . F i l l n e r was r e p r e s e n t i n g a cod e f e n d a n t charged i n a s e p a r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h t h e s a m e crime. Because t h i s appeared t o p r e s e n t a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t , t h e c o u r t t h e n a p p o i n t e d M r . Whalen t o r e p r e s e n t defendant. T h i s was approved by d e f e n d a n t a t t h e time. On September 1 2 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t came i n t o c o u r t pro s upon h i s p e t i t i o n - -e , t h a t h i s c o u n s e l , M r . Whalen, be d i s m i s s e d and t h a t he b e a s s i g n e d a n o t h e r c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t him i n t h e c a s e . He informed t h e c o u r t t h a t , "me and M r . Whalen d o n ' t s e e e y e t o e y e " . H e told the court t h a t he f e l t he was e n t i t l e d t o f a i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and h e j u s t d i d n ' t f e e l t h a t h e would r e c e i v e t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from M r . Whalen. The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t M r . Whalen was a n e x c e l l e n t a t t o r n e y and w e l l q u a l i f i e d i n c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s and t h e c o u r t e x p r e s s e d i t s f e e l i n g t h a t M r . Whalen t o o k a p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e p e r s o n s he w a s a p p o i n t e d t o represent. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t o d e f e n d a n t t h e problem h e was p r e s e n t i n g t o t h e c o u r t , inasmuch a s d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t want t h e s e r v i c e s of M r . Adams, and M r . F i l l n e r was r e p r e s e n t i n g a n o t h e r p a r t y t h a t m i g h t g i v e r i s e t o a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t had a p p o i n t e d a competent a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t him. Mr. 1975. Whalen was p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g of September 1 2 , He s t a t e d t o t h e c o u r t i n t h e p r e s e n c e of d e f e n d a n t t h a t t h e r e were two t h i n g s t h a t d e f e n d a n t had r e q u e s t e d of him. One, d e f e n d a n t f e l t t h a t M r . Whalen s h o u l d make a motion f o r d i s c o v e r y and two, he f e l t t h a t M r . Whalen s h o u l d make a motion f o r s e p a r a t e t r i a l s . Mr. Whalen e x p l a i n e d t o t h e c o u r t t h a t he had p o i n t e d o u t t o d e f e n d a n t t h a t h e was i n f a c t r e c e i v i n g a s e p a r a t e t r i a l and t h a t he would n o t b e t r i e d w i t h t h e co-defendant. F u r t h e r , M r . Whalen had gone t h r o u g h t h e e n t i r e p o l i c e f i l e and had o b t a i n e d and had i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n c o p i e s of t h e s t a t e m e n t s of w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s o t h a t he had a l l of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t any motion f o r d i s c o v e r y m i g h t r e v e a l . He had made t h e s e c o p i e s of s t a t e m e n t s a v a i l a b l e t o d e f e n d a n t . The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion of t h e d e f e n d a n t t o d i s - m i s s h i s c o u n s e l and t o a p p o i n t s u b s t i t u t e c o u n s e l . On t h e same day, September 1 2 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t Pep- = p e r l i n g presented t o t h e c o u r t h i s w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n -, se o b j e c t i n g t o t h e r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e c o u n t y j a i l r e l a t i n g t o v i s i t i n g h o u r s and i n s p e c t i o n of m a i l . On September 1 5 , 1975, h e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t h i s w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n pro se -t s t a t i n g t h a t h e was b e i n g h a r a s s e d by t h e j a i l e r i n t h e county j a i l . On September 1 9 , 1975, a h e a r i n g was had b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e s p e c t i n g t h e s e p e t i t i o n s where d e f e n d a n t was r e p r e s e n t e d by M r . Russell F i l l n e r . Upon h e a r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by p l a i n t i f f , t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court denied t h e p e t i t i o n s . On September 1 9 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t came i n t o c o u r t w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y M r . Whalen, and t h e r e M r . Whalen a d v i s e d t h e c o u r t t h a t d e f e n d a n t was d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h M. ~ h a l e n ' s r s e r v i c e s and was a s k i n g for s u b s t i t u t i o n of c o u n s e l . The c o u r t t o o k t h e m a t t e r under advisement and on t h a t day a g a i n d e n i e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s r e q u e s t t h a t h i s c o u n s e l be d i s m i s s e d and t h a t s u b s t i t u t e c o u n s e l be a p p o i n t e d . ~ e a n w h i l e , t h e c o u r t s e t t h e t r i a l of t h e c a u s e f o r September 2 4 , 1975 a t 1:30 p.m. F u r t h e r , on September 1 9 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d w r i t t e n motions, again pro -, se f o r (1) a r e q u e s t f o r d i s - m i s s a l o f h i s c o u n s e l , and ( 2 ) a r e q u e s t f o r postponement of h i s t r i a l . On September 22, 1975, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s l e t t e r i n s u p p o r t of h i s motion f o r postponement of h i s trial. On September 2 4 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a w r i t t e n motion p r o- se, f o r change of venue, c h a r g i n g p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t him i n t h e c o u n t y , and h i s w r i t t e n r e q u e s t f o r t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e p r e s i d i n g judge. A motion of d e f e n d a n t f o r w i t h d r a w a l of t h e judge was t r e a t e d a s a motion f o r d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , and on September 2 6 , 1975, h i s motion was g r a n t e d and t h e c a u s e was t r a n s f e r r e d t o Judge C . B. Sande. A l l of t h e o t h e r pending p e t i t i o n s and motions o f d e f e n d a n t were d e n i e d on September 2 4 , 1975. The t r i a l w a s v a c a t e d and r e s e t t o October 2 1 , 1975. On September 26, 1975, d e f e n d a n t , a g a i n a c t i n g on h i s own, f i l e d a w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n f o r t h e d i s m i s s a l of Judge Sande. A h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h i s motion on October 3, 1975, w i t h Judge J a c k Shanstrom p r e s i d i n g and i n t h i s c a s e , a f t e r a h e a r i n g of t e s t i m o n y adduced b o t h by d e f e n d a n t and t h e c o u n t y , t h e motion f o r t h e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of Judge Sande was d e n i e d . Mr. Whalen was p r e s e n t a t t h i s h e a r i n g and t o l d t h e c o u r t t h a t h e had a d v i s e d d e f e n d a n t as t o t h e p r o p e r r e q u i s i t e s f o r a n a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of a judge i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e . O n t h e 6 t h day of O c t o b e r , 1975, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s motion t h r o u g h M r . Whalen f o r an o r d e r of s u b s t i t u t i o n of Judge Sande and t h e r e a f t e r , on October 1 5 , 1975, ~ u d g e~ h a r l e s Luedke assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e c a s e . The t r i a l of d e f e n - d a n t was t h e n r e s e t f o r November 5 , 1975, a t 9:30 a.m. On October 22, 1975, d e f e n d a n t had a g a i n f i l e d h i s w r i t t e n motion f o r d i s m i s s a l of h i s c o u n s e l , and a l s o a p e t i t i o n f o r a show c a u s e h e a r i n g , which i s i n e f f e c t a motion f o r s u p p r e s s i o n of c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d a g a i n s t him, and a t h i r d w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n t o t h e same e f f e c t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h a t evidence. These p e t i t i o n s were f i l e d w i t h - o u t t h e a i d of h i s c o u n s e l , M r . Whalen. On October 23, 1975, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s motion t o d i s q u a l i f y Judge Luedke and a t t h e same t i m e , f i l e d w i t h t h e c o u r t h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t Judge Luedke d i s m i s s h i s c o u n s e l and a p p o i n t a n o t h e r a t t o r ney f o r him. October 2 4 , 1975, Judge Luedke r e s e t t h e t r i a l of d e f e n d a n t f o r November 4 , 1975, and on t h a t same d a t e , Judge J a c k Shanstrom of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t assumed jurisdiction. On October 29, 1975, d e f e n d a n t , t h r o u g h h i s c o u n s e l , moved t h e c o u r t f o r t h e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of Judge Shanstrom. However, on November 5, 1975, a t 9:30 a . m . , t h e time set f o r t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t and h i s c o u n s e l , M r . Whalen, a p p e a r e d bef o r e Judge Shanstrom and n o t i f i e d t h e judge t h a t t h e y wished t o make a motion t o change t h e p l e a of d e f e n d a n t from n o t g u i l t y t o g u i l t y . I n t h e meantime, b e f o r e t h e t r i a l d a t e , M r . Whalen, a s d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l , had g i v e n n o t i c e t o t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y of two a d d i t i o n a l a l i b i w i t n e s s e s r e q u i r e d by d e f e n d a n t ; M r . Whalen had r e q u e s t e d and o b t a i n e d an o r d e r t h a t a p o t e n t i a l d e f e n s e w i t n e s s f imprisoned a t Deer Lodge be b r o u g h t t o ~ i l l i n g s o r t h e t r i a l ; and h e had o b t a i n e d t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s e n t i r e case f i l e p r i o r t o t h e d a t e set f o r t r i a l . I n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s which o c c u r r e d on November 5, 1975, d e f e n d a n t was p r e s e n t i n c o u r t w i t h h i s c o u n s e l , M r . Whalen. The c o u r t a d v i s e d d e f e n d a n t t h a t b e f o r e a c c e p t i n g h i s p l e a of g u i l t y , h e s h o u l d u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e S t a t e was r e a d y t o p r o c e e d t o t r i a l a t t h a t t i m e and t h a t t h e w i t n e s s e s were a l l subpoenaed and p r e s e n t and a v a i l a b l e t o go t o t r i a l and t h a t t h e f u l l j u r y p a n e l w a s a l s o p r e s e n t , r e a d y f o r t h e t r i a l , and t h a t any p l e a t h a t h e made would have t o be v o l u n t a r y on h i s p a r t , f r e e l y made by him, and t h a t h e must a g r e e t h e r e had been no c o e r c i o n o r d u r e s s , o r t h r e a t s made t o him. To t h i s s t a t e m e n t , d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d . The c o u r t f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t hewan'ted t h e r e c o r d t o show t h a t h e had d i s c u s s e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l what s e n t e n c e h e would impose on a p l e a of g u i l t y and t h a t h e had informed him t h a t he would impose a s e n t e n c e of 2 0 y e a r s . Defendant s t a t e d he u n d e r s t o o d t h a t . Defendant f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t no o t h e r promises had been made t o him and t h a t he f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d what t h e s e n t e n c e would be. He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he understood t h a t i f it w a s h i s d e s i r e t o go t o t r i a l , e v e r y t h i n g was a v a i l a b l e a t t h a t t i m e and t h a t he c o u l d go t o t r i a l . Defendant s t a t e d t h a t h e would j u s t a s soon withdraw h i s p l e a . H i s c o u n s e l t h e n reminded t h e c o u r t t h a t i t was h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t on a p l e a b a r g a i n i n g b a s i s , t h e 20 y e a r s e n t e n c e imposed would r u n conc u r r e n t l y w i t h any t i m e t o be s e r v e d f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s v i o l a t i o n as a p a r o l e e . The c o u r t s a i d t h i s was h i s under- s t a n d i n g and t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e and t h e p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n t i m e , i f any, would r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y . Thereupon t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t a c c e p t e d t h e p l e a o f g u i l t y t h e n made by d e f e n d a n t and imposed t h e s e n t e n c e of 2 0 y e a r s , d e f e n d a n t h a v i n g waived h i s r i g h t f o r f u r t h e r t i m e f o r pronouncing t h e judgment and s e n t e n c e . On December 1 8 , 1975, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e c e i v e d i n t h e m a i l from d e f e n d a n t , c o n f i n e d i n t h e p r i s o n a t Deer Lodge, h i s r e q u e s t - forma p a u p e r i s f o r a copy o f t h e in t r a n s c r i p t c o n c e r n i n g h i s change o f p l e a o n November 5. his t r a n s c r i p t was f u r n i s h e d t o d e f e n d a n t . On J a n u a r y 21, 1976, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e c e i v e d t h e m o t i o n of d e f e n d a n t , a p p e a r i n g p r o-e , t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a and t o va- s ~ a t eh e s e n t e n c e imposed upon him. t On J u l y 11, 1976, J u d g e Shanstrom d e n i e d t h e motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a and t o v a c a t e t h e s e n t e n c e . In i t s o r d e r of d e n i a l , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e m a t t e r o f t h e change o f p l e a was d i s c u s s e d i n advance w i t h c o u n s e l and t h e d e f e n d a n t , and d u r i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , d e f e n d a n t a s k e d t h e c o u r t i f t h i s would r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h t h e s e n t e n c e h e was p r e s e n t l y s e r v i n g and t h a t t h e a c c u s e d w a s a d v i s e d by t h e c o u r t t h a t i t would r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y . The c o u r t a l s o p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e change o f p l e a , d e f e n d a n t knew t h a t t h e j u r y was p r e s e n t i n t h e j u r y box and a l l t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s w e r e p r e s e n t and r e a d y t o go t o t r i a l and t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e overwhelmingly p o i n t e d to his guilt. The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e r e was no m e r i t t o d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t e m p t t o d i s q u a l i f y him and d e n i e d any motion t o d i s q u a l i f y him i n t h e c a s e . With r e s p e c t t o d e f e n d a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by c o u n s e l , t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o c o u n s e l of h i s c h o i c e b u t r a t h e r t o a d e q u a t e and competent c o u n s e l . The C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t M r . Whalen was a c o m p e t e n t , c a p a b l e and a b l e d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y and t h a t h e a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d d e f e n d a n t a t a l l s t a g e s of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . On ~ u l y 2 , 1976, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s w r i t t e n n o t i c e 1 of a p p e a l , and was g i v e n p e r m i s s i o n t o proceed on h i s in a p p e a l - forma p a u p e r i s . Defendant had n o t e d s e v e r a l grounds i n h i s motion of t h e c o u r t f o r w i t h d r a w a l of h i s g u i l t y p l e a , b u t on h i s appeal, h i s s i n g l e contention is t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court's r e f u s a l t o d i s m i s s h i s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l and a p p o i n t f o r him d i f f e r e n t c o u n s e l d e p r i v e d him of t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of a f a i r t r i a l and c a u s e d him t o p l e a d g u i l t y . The p r i n c i p a l f o r c e of h i s argument i s t h a t he d i d n o t r e c e i v e e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l . W have s e t o u t t h e r e p l e t i o n of motions and p e t i t i o n s e f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t on -s- h i own, even though h e was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l a t t h e t i m e , t o show t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of h i s d e c i s i o n t o change h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y . As the D i s - t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a , d e f e n d a n t w a s " c e r t a i n l y w e l l aware and w e l l a d v i s e d a b o u t h i s l e g a l r i g h t s under t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s , t h e S t a t e of Montana, and c e r t a i n l y a l l of t h e a d d i t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a s s e t down under t h e Miranda d e c i s i o n " . I t i s c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d t h a t d e f e n d a n t d e c i d e d t o change h i s p l e a - -son h i own. T h e r e i s no s u g g e s t i o n h e r e t h a t h e changed h i s p l e a on a d v i s e of h i s c o u n s e l , o r t h a t h i s c o u n s e l m i s l e d him i n t o changing h i s p l e a . T h e c o n t e n t i o n s of d e f e n d a n t a r e t h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e t r i a l had been s e t , h i s c o u n s e l was n o t p r e p a r e d t o go t o t r i a l , " d i d n o t wish t o t a k e t h e c a s e t o t r i a l " , had n o t i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e f a c t s of t h e c a s e o r i n t e r v i e w e d t h e w i t nesses. Defendant t h e n c o n t e n d s t h a t , r e a l i z i n g t h e f u t i l i t y of g o i n g t o t r i a l w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y , h e had no o t h e r c h o i c e but to plead guilty. He now contends he was innocent of the charge. Assignments of error not contained in the record need not be considered by an appellate court. See State v. Wong Son (1943), 114 Mont. 185, 133 P.2d 761; State v. Stevens (1946), 119 Mont. 169, 172 P.2d 299; State v. Thomson (1976), 169 Ilont. 158, 545 P.2d 1070. The granting or refusal of permission to withdraw a plea of guilty and to substitute a plea of not guilty rests in the discretion of the trial court and is subject to review only where an abuse of discretion has been shown. State v. Nance (1947), 120 Mont. 152, 184 P.2d 554; State v. Mack (1958), 134 Mont. 301, 330 P.2d 968. Here the record does not support defendant's contentions regarding his counsel, nor does it show that the District Court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to change his plea of guilty. With respect to his counsel, the record points the other way: the attorney had obtained the full county attorney's file with respect to defendant, had made that file available to defendant, had applied to the court to procure witnesses to attend the trial, and was present with the defendant on the morning the trial had been set, ready to go to trial. It further appears that defendant was not misled into pleading guilty and he did so with full understanding as to the consequences. State v. Nance, supra. Since Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, an indigent defendant in a state criminal prosecution is entitled to have counsel appointed to represent him. The indigent's right to counsel includes the right to have "effective assistance". State V. McElveen ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 500, 503, 544 P.2d 820. While t h e D i s - t r i c t C o u r t h e r e d i d n o t r e q u i r e h e a r i n g s on t h e content i o n s of d e f e n d a n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , such h e a r i n g s a r e u n n e c e s s a r y where i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e c o n t e n t i o n s of t h e d e f e n d a n t a r e c o n t r a d i c t e d by f a c t s i n t h e record. See United S t a t e s v. M o r r i s s e y (2nd C i r . 1972), 461 F.2d 666. Defendant r e l i e s on F a r e t t a v. C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562, t o s u p p o r t h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t s i n c e he was d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h h i s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , h e was e n t i t l e d t o have t h e c o u r t a p p o i n t new c o u n s e l f o r him. H i s confidence i n F a r e t t a i s misplaced. F a r e t t a h o l d s o n l y t h a t a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t , under t h e S i x t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , h a s a r i g h t t o have a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l d i s m i s s e d and t o proceed w i t h o u t c o u n s e l , s h o u l d h e wish t o do s o . Here, d e f e n d a n t i s i n s i s t i n g t h a t b e c a u s e he was d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h h i s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , t h e c o u r t s h o u l d have d i s c h a r g e d t h a t a t t o r n e y from r e p r e s e n t i n g d e f e n d a n t and a p p o i n t e d d i f f e r e n t counsel. N c a s e s o f a r concedes t h a t r i g h t . o Rather, t h e cases a r e i n t h e o t h e r d i r e c t i o n . H i s right to c o u n s e l d o e s n o t i n c l u d e t h e r i g h t t o s e l e c t a n a t t o r n e y of h i s own c h o o s i n g , United S t a t e s v . C l a r k , 429 F.Supp. (W.G. Okla. 1 9 7 6 ) , 89, 98, o r r e q u i r e t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d must be approved by t h e d e f e n d a n t , P e t i t i o n of Hunsinger ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 445, 456 P.2d 304. W e h o l d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t an i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t h a s a r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , and t h a t s u c h c o u n s e l must r e n der "effective assistance". W f u r t h e r hold, t h a t once e c o u n s e l h a s been a p p o i n t e d by t h e ~ i s t k i c C o u r t , and such t counsel i s rendering e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e defendant, the defendant may not have his appointed counsel dismissed or discharged and obtain different counsel or demand that certain counsel be appointed for him. When his appointed counsel is rendering effective assistance, the defendant has the choice of (1) continuing with the counsel so appointed, or (2) having his counsel dismissed and proceeding on defendant's own, pro se. See Faretta v. Cali- fornia, supra. Here the defendant voluntarily pleaded guilty to the crime charged. Since we find that he was receiving effec- tive representation by his appointed counsel, such plea of guilty by defendant wiped out any claim of defendant as to defects or irregularities in the criminal proceedings before that plea, short of constitutional dimensions. Tol- lett v. Henderson (1973), 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235. Defendant, having received the benefit of plea bargaining in his case, is bound thereby. The State is entitled to be assured that defendant will be held to his bargain. The order of the District Court denying the motion of defendant to change his plea from guilty to not guilty is affirmed. We Concur: ............................... Justices
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.
