STATE v GATES

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-48 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O NONTANA F F 1982 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsJ A Y LEE GATES, 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 Fourth 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 M i s s o u l a , The H o n o r a b l e Douglas G. H a r k i n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : F e r g u s o n & M i t c h e l l ; C o l l e e n M. Montana Dowdall, M i s s o u l a , F o r Respondent: Hon. 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 , &Iontana R o b e r t L. Descha~nps, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: dU- L 5 198% May 20, 1982 J u l y 1 5 , 1982 Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I , H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the Court. D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f h i s p r o s e motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a . W affirm. e 30, charged On December information with on J a n u a r y 7 , held on 198G1, forgery, 1981. a defendant felony, On F e b r u a r y defendant's guilty. After accepted pro s e extensive defendant's by He p l e a d e d n o t g u i l t y 1981, 25, motion to plea a hearing change and his was plea to the District Court interrogation, guilty was on April s e n t e n c e d him t o t w e n t y y e a r s a t t h e Montana 8, 1981, State Prison. D e f e n d a n t was 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 . Also requested not that guilty thereafter tional at by a the April defendant reason notice transcripts 8 be of of hearing, allowed to insanity, being pro s e motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a . withdrawn. After a hearing was filed. prepared, Court s e t t h i s motion f o r h e a r i n g , attorney change h i s p l e a which a p p e a l was were defendant's denied, to and While t h e a d d i defendant filed a When t h e D i s t r i c t t h e n o t i c e of on S e p t e m b e r 28, a p p e a l was 1981, defen- d a n t ' s m o t i o n was d e n i e d , and he a p p e a l s . One i s s u e is p r e s e n t e d f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n : D i s t r i c t Court abuse its discretion Did t h e 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 ? Both Mont . parties - 595 , P.2d cite 363, State 36 v. Huttinger St.Rep. 945, as (1979), setting the s t a n d a r d s by which t o j u d g e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e . In Huttinger we reviewing s e t out the factors to be c o n s i d e r e d when a t t e m p t e d withdrawal of a g u i l t y p l e a : "The t h r e e f a c t o r s of which we s p e a k a r e ( 1 ) t h e a d e q u a c y o f t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e e n t r y o f an t h e g u i l t y p l e a a s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s unders t a n d i n g of t h e consequences of h i s p l e a , ( 2 ) t h e promptness with which t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t s t o w i t h d r a w t h e p r i o r p l e a , and ( 3 ) t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a was a p p a r e n t l y t h e r e s u l t of a p l e a b a r g a i n i n which t h e g u i l t y p l e a was g i v e n i n e x c h a n g e f o r d i s m i s s a l of a n o t h e r c h a r g e Mont. a t , 595 P.2d a t 3 6 6 , 36 S t . R e p . a t 947. . . ." Both are sides agree inapplicable, plea was made bargain the in first i.e., in this a that the second t h e motion timely case. fashion This brings factor--the adequacy and third factors t o withdraw t h e g u i l t y and there was no plea us t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n of of District the Court's i n t e r r o g a t i o n a t t h e t i m e p l e a was e n t e r e d . In this regard appellant points out that defendant had n o t d i s c u s s e d t h e c h a n g e of h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y and t h a t t h e r e was some l a c k o f rapport between Appellant defendant argues t h a t and from his these c o m m u n i c a t i o n and attorney facts at that i t c a n be time. presumed t h a t defendant d i d n o t f u l l y understand t h e consequences of h i s g u i l t y plea. Appellant also contends t h a t defendant's testimony a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a i n d i c a t e d he was e n t e r i n g the f a c t t h a t he was g u i l t y . plea for reasons other than the He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he f e l t he had been i n t h e M i s s o u l a County j a i l t o o l o n g and t h a t he h e a r d v o i c e s t e l l i n g him t h a t p l e a d i n g g u i l t y was t h e o n l y way t o y e t o u t of that the there. District Finally, Court appellant argues t h a t the f a c t knew that defendant had been in s e v e r a l mental i n s t i t u t i o n s s h o u l d have i n f l u e n c e d t h e judge t o a l l o w t h e withdrawal of t h e g u i l t y p l e a . The S t a t e r e f e r s u s t o l a n g u a g e we quoted from S t a t e v . Lewis i n Muttinger wherein ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 474, 485, 582 P.2d 3 4 6 , 352, a s f o l l o w s : ". . . when i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e d u r e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court c a r e f u l l y , a s h e r e , examines t h e d e f e n d a n t , f i n d s him t o be c o m p e t e n t , a n d d e t e r m i n e s from him t h a t h i s p l e a o f g u i l t y is v o l u n t a r y , he u n d e r s t a n d s t h e c h a r g e and h i s p o s s i b l e p u n i s h m e n t , he i s n o t a c t i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e of d r u g s o r a l c o h o l , he a d m i t s h i s c o u n s e l i s c o m p e t e n t and he h a s been w e l l a d v i s e d , and h e d e c l a r e s i n o p e n c o u r t t h e f a c t s upon which h i s g u i l t is b a s e d , t h e n a p l e a o f g u i l t y a c c e p t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on t h e b a s i s of t h a t examinat i o n w i l l be u p h e l d .I1 .. The with State argues that the District Court complied t h e above s t a n d a r d and even went beyond t h a t i n q u e s - t i o n i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t , and t h e S t a t e p o i n t s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c a r e f u l l y examined t h e d e f e n d a n t and determined that defendant was competent p l e a of g u i l t y was b e i n g v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d . and that the D e f e n d a n t was f u l l y a d v i s e d o f t h e c h a r g e and p o s s i b l e p u n i s h m e n t and was n o t under t h e i n f l u e n c e o f d r u g s o r a l c o h o l . With competency regard of to counsel, the the element in Lewis State argues regarding that the lack the of communication d i d n o t deny d e f e n d a n t e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l b e c a u s e d e f e n d a n t had p r e v i o u s l y been f u l l y a d v i s e d on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e and t h e p r o b l e m s between d e f e n d a n t and h i s c o u n s e l were o n l y p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s . Finally, t h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t d e f e n d a n t s t a t e d t h e f a c t s i n open c o u r t a b o u t how he had f o r g e d t h e c h e c k s . Both parties agree that the denial of a motion to w i t h d r a w a g u i l t y p l e a r e s t s i n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l , showing of a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . rel. Gladue v. 509, 575 P.2d Eighth J u d i c i a l 65. Huttinger, District absent the supra; S t a t e ex ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 5 Mont. W f i n d t h a t t h e r e was no a b u s e of d i s e cretion here. After defendant entered that entered detailed his In t r a n s c r i p t of guilty plea, to where District Court the regarding addition the hearing what occurred at elements the had required by s u p r a , t h e c o u r t a d v i s e d him o f h i s r i g h t t o t r i a l b y jury, t o be c o n f r o n t e d w i t h w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t him, had stated the he appeared right was to in not incriminate himself. of all his District Court the influenced to possession that he f a c t h e was t i r e d o f not the findings hearing. Lewis, he reviewing his being and t h a t Defendant faculties was) and (and it that the i n t h e Missoula County j a i l had decision to plead guilty. Moreover, d e f e n d a n t s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e a s o n h e was p l e a d i n g g u i l t y was b e c a u s e h e had c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i ~ n e , w h i c h h e knew t o b e an unlawful act. bargain in Defendant case the acknowledged that and the there judge was could no plea impose a maximum s e n t e n c e o f t w e n t y y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n f o r the crime. W e the hold that defendant a t the the time of adequate in t h i s case, Iiuttinger test, two other factors that the District denying are entering satisfying supra. defendant's District Court's the Since both did motion not to of t h e g u i l t y p l e a was f i r s t element of parties inapplicable Court interrogation to this abuse withdraw agree case, the that the we find its d i s c r e t i o n his guilty in plea, Gladue, supra. Affirmed. 2 4 4 $1 %4, Chief J u s t i c e We c o n c u r :

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.