STATE v BROWN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-07 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1981 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , GARY BROWN, D e f e n d a n t 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 Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f G l a c i e r , The H o n o r a b l e R. D. McPhillips, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: C h a r l e s M J o s l y n , C h o t e a u , Montana , F o r Respondent: EIon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana J a m e s C . N e l s o n , County A t t o r n e y , C u t Bank, Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided : Filed: && 1 7 1 t 9M May 1, 1 9 8 1 J.w 1 7 Ig8' Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . I n December 1979 d e f e n d a n t Gary Brown was c h a r g e d i n G l a c i e r County D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h t h r e e counts of felony t h e f t , a l l e g e d t o h a v e b e e n c o m m i t t e d i n C u t Bank, Montana, on v a r i o u s d a t e s i n November and December entered not g u i l t y pleas pretrial the i n J a n u a r y 1980. a g r e e m e n t was e n t e r e d State. Pursuant to 1979. the Defendant Thereafter, a i n t o b e t w e e n d e f e n d a n t and agreement, d e f e n d a n t was to p l e a d g u i l t y t o e a c h c o u n t and t h e S t a t e was t o recommend five-year s e n t e n c e s t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y and t h a t d e f e n d a n t n o t be c h a r g e d a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r n o r t h a t h e be d e s i g n a t e d a d a n g e r o u s o f f e n d e r f o r p a r o l e p u r p o s e s . pretrial a g r e e m e n t was s i g n e d and f i l e d with The the District C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 6 , 1 9 8 0 . On F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1980, d e f e n d a n t changed h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y on e a c h c o u n t . agreement and, knowingly The c o u r t t o o k n o t i c e o f t h e p r e t r i a l after determining that defendant and v o l u n t a r i l y c h a n g i n g h i s p l e a , was accepted the p l e a and o r d e r e d a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . On March 5 , 1 9 8 0 , d e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d f o r s e n t e n c i n g . Following years hearing, the court and designated sentencing defendant, him the sentenced defendant t o a nondangerous court offender. acknowledged seven In the pretrial a g r e e m e n t b u t i n c r e a s e d t h e recommended s e n t e n c e b e c a u s e o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p a s t h i s t o r y of p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n s , h i s i n a b i l i t y to learn from past experiences with the law, and his untruthfulness w i t h the presentence investigator. Immediately following s e n t e n c i n g , p e t i t i o n for post-conviction breached the pretrial defendant f i l e d a r e l i e f claiming t h a t t h e S t a t e agreement and that t h e s e n t e n c e of s e v e n y e a r s on e a c h c o u n t was i m p r o p e r . The p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d , and d e f e n d a n t now a p p e a l s . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r o u r r e v i e w : Whether 1. the State breached the pretrial Court properly sentenced a g r e e m e n t ; and Whether 2. the District d e f e n d a n t on e a c h o f t h e t h r e e c o u n t s o f f e l o n y t h e f t . It a is widely-recognized principle that when a g u i l t y p l e a r e s t s i n any s i g n i f i c a n t d e g r e e on a p r o m i s e o r agreement of p a r t of the prosecutor, s o t h a t i t c a n be s a i d t o b e t h e inducement o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , be f u l f i l l e d . 257, 92 S . C t . such promise must S e e S a n t o b e l l o v . N e w York 495, 30 L.Ed.2d Here t h e p r e t r i a l ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 404 U.S. 427. agreement r e q u i r e d exchange f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t y p l e a , the State, t o recommend a f i v e - y e a r s e n t e n c e on e a c h c o u n t t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y . maintains that this recommendation in was not Defendant made. Upon r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d , w e must d i s a g r e e . The actual agreement, which included a provision c o n c e r n i n g t h e S t a t e ' s recommended s e n t e n c e , was f i l e d w i t h the District hearing. Court nearly a month before the sentencing The D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g e t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o c e e d i n g acknowledged the existence i m p o s i t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s of this agreement and during s e n t e n c e made p a r t i c u l a r m e n t i o n o f t h e S t a t e ' s recommendation: I1Q . Mr. B r o w n , y o u a r e negotiations for a plea here. aware A. of the Yes. "Q. T h e p l e a o f g u i l t y t o t h r e e c o u n t s ? Yes. A. "Q. I n e x c h a n g e f o r a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e County A t t o r n e y t o t h e C o u r t of f i v e y e a r s i n Yes." t h e S t a t e p r i s o n ? A. W agree with defendant t h a t the prosecutor did not e specifically "voice" the recommendation of a five-year s e n t e n c e b u t c o n c l u d e t h a t s u c h a c t i o n was n o t n e c e s s a r y i n I t is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e S t a t e f u l l y a p p r i s e d t h i s instance. t h e D i s t r i c t Court of court was aware of t h e p r e t r i a l a g r e e m e n t and t h a t t h e the recommended throughout the sentencing process. five-year sentence The S t a t e ' s o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e a g r e e m e n t i s t h u s deemed s a t i s f i e d . Defendant pretrial next agreement argues by that the advocating State the breached imposition s e n t e n c e g r e a t e r t h a n t h e recommended f i v e y e a r s . the of a W e again must d i s a g r e e . I n s u p p o r t of h i s argument d e f e n d a n t n o t e s t h a t t h e prosecutor, at the defendant f a i l e d criminal be to representations sentencing falsely the presentence in t h i s effort. forced s t a n d by to court hearing, the which the improper defendant's position. that his prior investigation. W e and a l l o w a d e f e n d a n t t o make presentence an out Certainly the S t a t e should in stated brought t o mention t h e f u l l e x t e n t of record during f i n d no e r r o r not sentencing investigator prosecutor believes attempt to and the have been better the S u c h a r e s u l t w i l l n o t be p e r m i t t e d , and t h e f a c t t h a t a p r e t r i a l a g r e e m e n t h a s b e e n s i g n e d which requires that a certain sentence be recommended has no b e a r i n g upon t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . Regarding t h e second i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t contends t h a t , under his v e r s i o n of the facts, t h e t h r e e counts of theft w i t h which h e was c h a r g e d c o n s t i t u t e b u t o n e o f f e n s e i n o n e t r a n s a c t i o n a n d , t h e r e f o r e , h e c o u l d be c o n v i c t e d o n l y o n c e . I n r e j e c t i n g t h i s a r g u m e n t we need o n l y n o t e t h a t d e f e n d a n t , a f t e r b e i n g f u l l y a d v i s e d by c o u n s e l and t h e c o u r t , p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o t h r e e s e p a r a t e counts of t h e f t a s charged i n t h e information. The i n f o r m a t i o n , a s presented by t h e S t a t e , contends t h e o f f e n s e s a r o s e o u t of t h r e e s e p a r a t e i n c i d e n t s . I f the defendant did not agree with t h i s version of t h e c h a r g e s o r d i d n o t w i s h t o f a c e s e n t e n c i n g on a l l t h r e e c o u n t s , he c o u l d h a v e g o n e t o t r i a l on h i s t h e o r y t h a t t h e offenses in fact arose out of the same transaction. D e f e n d a n t , h o w e v e r , c h o s e n o t t o d o s o and p l e a d e d g u i l t y a s charged. We find no error in the District Court's i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e upon a l l t h r e e c o u n t s . The j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n a s e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f irmed W concur: e A .

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.