STATE v SANDERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13863 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vsRICHARD SANDERS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Calton and Stephens, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Jack Yardley, County Attorney, Livingston, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: MFg '. y-2 February 27, 1978 MAR 17 1978 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . his i s a n a p p e a l from a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , P a r k County, denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n relief. T h i s i s t h e t h i r d o c c a s i o n t h a t t h i s c a s e h a s been b e f o r e t h i s Court. I n March 1 9 7 0 , a p p e l l a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h t h r e e c o u n t s of f e l o n y a s s a u l t . Count I a l l e g e d h e a s s a u l t e d t h r e e i t i n e r a n t magazine sales g i r l s . Count I1 a l l e g e d d e f e n d a n t p o i n t e d a l o a d e d gun a t a t o u r i s t . I11 a l l e g e d d e f e n d a n t a s s a u l t e d a f o r m e r employee. was d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k of e v i d e n c e . Count Count I Defendant was c o n v i c t e d on Counts I1 and 111, b u t t h e c o n v i c t i o n s w e r e r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l a s e x t r a n e o u s e v i d e n c e had been i m p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d . S t a t e v. Sanders, ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 113, 489 P.2d 371. Defendant was r e t r i e d and c o n v i c t e d of second d e g r e e a s s a u l t i n 1972. T h a t c o n v i c t i o n w a s a p p e a l e d on l a c k o f speedy t r i a l and w a s a f f i r m e d . 163 Mont. S t a t e v. Sanders, (1973), 209, 516 P.2d 372. D e f e n d a n t ' s 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 w a s revoked and h e w a s s e n t e n c e d t o f o u r y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e prison. S a n d e r s s e r v e d h i s t e r m i n p r i s o n and h e i s no l o n g e r i n c a r c e r a t e d . I n December 1973, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court f o r post-conviction relief. The p e t i t i o n was r e f e r r e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of Park. I n A p r i l 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r denying a l l p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e m e d i e s . Appellant appeals from t h a t o r d e r . I n March 1970, a p p e l l a n t w a s c h a r g e d w i t h t h r e e c o u n t s of f e l o n i o u s a s s a u l t . After h i s a r r e s t , appellant contacted Dan Y a r d l e y , a n a t t o r n e y who had p r e v i o u s l y handled c i v i l m a t t e r s f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t , r e g a r d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on t h e criminal charges. A t t h e t i m e of t h i s c o n s u l t a t i o n , J a c k Yardley, t h e b r o t h e r and p a r t n e r of Dan Y a r d l e y , was t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y of L i v i n g s t o n , Montana. According t o t h e a f f i d a v i t by J a c k Y a r d l e y , d a t e d October 27, 1975, a s soon as J a c k became aware t h a t a p p e l l a n t was making i n q u i r y of h i s p a r t n e r , Dan Y a r d l e y , J a c k e n t e r e d t h e o f f i c e and a d v i s e d Dan Yardley and a p p e l l a n t and h i s w i f e t h a t a p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t c o u l d a r i s e , b e c a u s e h e was t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y , and members o f t h e L i v i n g s t o n p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t were i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a s e and t h u s p e r s p e c t i v e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t Sanders. Because of t h i s p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t , Dan Yardley t h e n d e c l i n e d t o a c c e p t t h e c a s e and no f e e was charged. J a c k Yardley s t a t e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t : " T h a t a t no t i m e d i d a f f i a n t l e a r n o r know of any of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r d e f e n s e s of RICHARD SANDERS a s t o t h e c h a r g e s of second d e g r e e a s s a u l t i n March 1970." A p p e l l a n t was c o n v i c t e d of t h e c h a r g e s i n 1970, a p p e a l e d , and t h e c o n v i c t i o n was r e v e r s e d by t h e Montana Supreme Court. 371. S t a t e v. Sanders, ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 1 1 3 , 489 P.2d I n J a n u a r y 1971, f o l l o w i n g S a n d e r s ' c o n v i c t i o n a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l , J a c k Yardley became t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f o r Park County, Montana. Subsequent t o t h e r e v e r s a l of h i s c o n v i c t i o n , a p p e l l a n t was r e t r i e d i n 1972 and c o n v i c t e d of o n e c o u n t of f e l o n i o u s a s s a u l t . The p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y on t h e r e t r i a l was J a c k Y a r d l e y . A p p e l l a n t based h i s p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n relief upon t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r a t a p p e l l a n t ' s 1972 t r i a l was t h e p a r t n e r of t h e a t t o r n e y whom h e i n i t i a l l y c o n s u l t e d p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t t r i a l regarding representation. I n a n a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f f i l e d by a p p e l l a n t and h i s w i f e i n Decemb e r 1973, a p p e l l a n t r e c i t e s t h e above f a c t s and s t a t e s t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h Dan Yardley they discussed i n c o m p l e t e d e t a i l t h e e v e n t s of t h e day of t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t and p o s s i b l e t h e o r i e s of d e f e n s e , and t h a t no d o u b t J a c k Yardley had o c c a s i o n t o h e a r t h e e n t i r e c o n v e r s a t i o n . iio o b j e c t i o n s were made a t t r i a l t o t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f J a c k Yardley t o p r o s e c u t e t h e c a s e on b e h a l f of t h e state. T h i s i s s u e was f i r s t r a i s e d i n a p p e l l a n t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f f i l e d a f t e r h i s c o n v i c t i o n was a f f i r m e d o n a p p e a l i n 1973, 19 months a f t e r r e t r i a l . The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether o r n o t S a n d e r s i s e n t i t l e d t o p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f based upon t h e a l l e g e d p r i o r involvement of t h e p r o s e c u t o r w i t h p r e l i m i n a r y d e f e n s e matters? W e w i l l assume, f o r t h e p u r p o s e of d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s issue, that appellant's allegations a r e true. To r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o l o o k a t t h e s e c o n d a r y issue--whether o r n o t a p p e l l a n t waived h i s p r i v i - l e g e t o a s s e r t t h e a l l e g e d p r o s e c u t o r i a l c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t ? A p p e l l a n t f i r s t r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n a p e t i t i o n f o r post-conviction r e l i e f f i l e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t 19 months a f t e r t h a t c o n v i c t i o n had been a f f i r m e d on a p p e a l . o b j e c t i o n was made, a l t h o u g h No a p p e l l a n t had t o be aware of t h e a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l . There a r e no Montana c a s e s d i r e c t l y on t h i s i s s u e , b u t t h i s C o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t may waive a l e g a l right. I n S t a t e v. Gallagher, ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont. 1 5 5 , 509 P.2d 852, t h e d e f e n d a n t was g i v e n a c h o i c e between e x p e r i enced c o u r t a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l and c o u n s e l who had p r e v i o u s l y prosecuted defendant i n another t r i a l . Defendant c h o s e a s h i s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h e a t t o r n e y who had p r e v i o u s l y p r o s e c u t e d him. T h i s C o u r t h e l d d e f e n d a n t , by h i s c o n d u c t , had waived any r i g h t t o demand a new t r i a l based on a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t of the attorney. An a s s e r t i o n of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of a p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y b e c a u s e of h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e a c c u s e d i s a p r i v i l e g e of t h e l a t t e r which may b e waived i n v a r i o u s ways, p r i n c i p a l l y by f a i l u r e t o r a i s e t h e p o i n t a t t h e e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e t i m e . D i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of P r o s e c u t i n g A t t o r n e y on Account of R e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Accused, Anno. 31 ALR3d 953, 989. Gajewski v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 261, c e r t . d e n . 375 U.S. (8th C i r . 1 9 6 3 ) , 321 F.2d 968, 1 L ed 2d 416, 8 4 S . C t . 1 486. I n the instant case appellant failed t o object t o Yardley p r o s e c u t i n g him a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l , based on a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . t h e outcome. I n s t e a d , h e s t o o d by and w a i t e d f o r When t h e outcome was u n f a v o r a b l e t o him, he r a i s e d t h e c o n f l i c t i s s u e a s a p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n remedy, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 19 months a f t e r h i s c o n v i c t i o n was a f f i r m e d . A p p e l l a n t c a n n o t s i t by and s p e c u l a t e on t h e outcome of h i s c o n v i c t i o n and t h e n r a i s e t h i s i s s u e a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t h a s been e n t e r e d . A p p e l l a n t waived h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b j e c t t o Yardley p r o s e c u t i n g him by f a i l i n g t o o b j e c t t o the prosecutor's qualifications a t t r i a l . Therefore, a l l post-conviction r e l i e f i s denied. /" ,& J & /' W e Concur: 3h&$ %& Chief J u s t i c e Justice
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.
