STATE v TATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-202 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. JAMES MONTE TATE, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth ~udicial~istrict, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Stacey and Jarussi, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: October 8, 1981 Decided: January 14, 1982 Filed: JAN 14 i982 M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Following a j u r y t r i a l b e f o r e t h e 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 C o u r t , Yellowstone County, t h e d e f e n d a n t , James Monte T a t e was c o n v i c t e d of b u r g l a r y and s e n t e n c e d t o t e n ( 1 0 ) y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . Defendant a p p e a l s . The f a c t s p e r t i n e n t t o t h e i s s u e r a i s e d i n t h i s a p p e a l c a n be c o n c i s e l y s t a t e d a s f o l l o w s : On A p r i l 29, 1980, a n i n f o r m a t i o n 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 d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e o f f e n s e of burglary. charge. The d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a p l e a of n o t g u i l t y t o t h e A t r i a l was h e l d on March 1 0 t h and l l t h , 1981. A t t r i a l , a f t e r t h e S t a t e had p r e s e n t e d i t s opening s t a t e m e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d t o speak p r i v a t e l y w i t h t h e p r e s i d i n g judge. The judge and d e f e n d a n t t h e n c o n f e r r e d i n chambers w i t h o u t a t t o r n e y s p r e s e n t . The d e f e n d a n t i n d i c a t e d h e had second t h o u g h t s a b o u t a p r i o r plea bargain o f f e r . The d e f e n d a n t s t a t e d he had a d r i n k i n g problem and wanted h e l p i n overcoming t h a t problem. He d e s i r e d placement i n an a l c o h o l t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t y and p r o b a t i o n i n exchange f o r a g u i l t y p l e a . The judge q u e s t i o n e d d e f e n d a n t r e g a r d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s drinking. Defendant s t a t e d he had had t h e problem s i n c e h e was s i x t e e n ( 1 6 ) o r s e v e n t e e n ( 1 7 ) and t h a t h e had j u s t turned age eighteen ( 1 8 ) . He s t a t e d h e had committed o t h e r b u r g l a r i e s a s a juvenile, a l l while intoxicated. Defendant a d m i t t e d t o u s i n g m a r i j u a n a o c c a s i o n a l l y , and t o having t r i e d o t h e r drugs. The judge t h e n c o n f e r r e d w i t h t h e a t t o r n e y s o u t of t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e d e f e n d a n t . The judge i n d i c a t e d t h a t he w a s ". . . t u r n i n g o v e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a g u i l t y p l e a t o f i r s t send him up t o Galen, r u n him t h r o u g h t h e t r e a t m e n t , and t h e n when h e g e t s back, p u t him up i n Swan R i v e r on a 5-year s e n t e n c e . . ." The S t a t e d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e plan. Defense c o u n s e l t h e n c o n f e r r e d w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t . No r e c o r d was made a t t h i s c o n f e r e n c e ; a p p a r e n t l y t h e d e f e n d a n t r e j e c t e d t h e p l a n b e c a u s e no g u i l t y p l e a was e n t e r e d and t h e t r i a l resumed. Defendant was found g u i l t y and s e n t e n c e d by t h e p r e s i d i n g judge t o a t e r m of t e n (10) y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e Prison. The judge based t h i s s e n t e n c e on t h e p r e - s e n t e n c e r e p o r t , t h e f a c t s adduced a t t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a g e , and t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e under t h e p a r o l e p r o v i s i o n s i n Montana. The s o l e i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l i s whether t h e d e f e n d a n t was p u n i s h e d f o r e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l . A s n o t e d i n S t a t e v . Baldwin ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 629 P.2d 2 2 2 , 38 St.Rep. Mont. I 882, "To p u n i s h a p e r s o n f o r e x e r c i s i n g a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t i s a b a s i c due p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n " ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) , 629 P.2d a t 225, 38 St.Rep. a t 884-85. T h i s C o u r t a l s o acknowledged i n Baldwin, s u p r a , t h a t : " [ i ] t may be d i f f i c u l t t o d i s t i n g u i s h between s i t u a t i o n s where l e n i e n c y i s o f f e r e d i n exchange f o r a p l e a and s i t u a t i o n s where t h e d e f e n d a n t i s punished f o r e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y . " 629 P.2d a t 225, 38 St.Rep. a t 885. I n o r d e r t o e l i m i n a t e t h i s d i f f i c u l t y and a l s o t o p r o t e c t a criminal defendant's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , t h i s C o u r t i n Baldwin a d o p t e d ABA s t a n d a r d 14-sec. S t a n d a r d s f o r C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e (2d. e d . 1 9 8 0 ) . declares that: 1 . 8 ( b ) , ABA This standard " ( b ) The c o u r t s h o u l d n o t impose upon a d e f e n d a n t any s e n t e n c e i n e x c e s s of t h a t which would b e j u s t i f i e d by any of t h e p r o t e c t i v e , d e t e r r e n t , o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s of t h e c r i m i n a l law b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s chosen t o r e q u i r e t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o prove g u i l t a t t r i a l r a t h e r than t o e n t e r a p l e a of g u i l t y o r n o l o c o n t e n d e r e . " To implement t h i s s t a n d a r d and f a c i l i t a t e j u d i c i a l r e v i e w , w e d e c l a r e d i n Baldwin t h a t : ". . . a s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t which becomes i n v o l v e d i n t h e p l e a b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s , and which imposes a h a r s h e r s e n t e n c e a f t e r t r i a l t h a n was o f f e r e d i n exchange f o r a g u i l t y p l e a , must s p e c i f i c a l l y out the the point -- f a c t o r s t h a t j u s t i f y - increased sentence." 629 P.2d a t 226, 3 8 St.Rep. a t 886. (Emphasis added.) I n t h i s c a s e , t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t imposed i t s e l f i n t h e p l e a b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s and s u g g e s t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t b e s e n t e n c e d t o t r e a t m e n t a t t h e Galen A l c o h o l i c Treatment C e n t e r and t h e n f i v e ( 5 ) y e a r s a t Swan R i v e r i n s t e a d of t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . T h i s o f f e r w a s based p r i m a r i l y on t h e c o u r t ' s b e l i e f t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d have a d r i n k i n g problem and a l s o b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s o n l y e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) y e a r s old. Following t r i a l d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o t e n ( 1 0 ) y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . based t h i s s e n t e n c e on ". . . The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t a l l of t h e f a c t s t h a t a r e s e t f o r t h i n t h e Pre-Sentence R e p o r t and c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f a c t s of t h e t r i a l of t h i s a c t i o n , and c o n s i d e r i n g a l s o t h e f a c t t h a t you a r e 18 y e a r s of a g e and t h a t t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h a t a r e g i v e n t o you under t h e p a r o l e r i g h t s i n t h i s S t a t e . . ." To a l a r g e d e g r e e , t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t had much o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n a t i t s d i s p o s a l when i t o f f e r e d t h e o r i g i n a l p l e a bargain t o t h e defendant. I t i s impossible t o determine what new i n f o r m a t i o n o r f a c t s l e d t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t t o increase the sentence. Enumerating t h e g e n e r a l grounds f o r t h e defendant's sentence does n o t " p o i n t o u t t h e f a c t o r s " j u s t i f y i n g the increased sentence with s u f f i c i e n t s p e c i f i c i t y , a s r e q u i r e d by Baldwin, s u p r a . W note t h a t t h e sentencing c o u r t i n t h i s case rendered e i t s d e c i s i o n on March 2 0 , 1981, a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x weeks p r i o r t o o u r d e c i s i o n i n Baldwin. A s a r e s u l t , its decision c o u l d n o t conform w i t h t h e Baldwin r e q u i r e m e n t s . In light of t h i s , we v a c a t e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e and remand t h i s case f o r re-sentencing i n conformity with ~ a l d w i n . W e Concur: dQQ %oce&.9 4&, Chief. J u s t i c e .\
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.
