STATE v GRAY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. I N TIIE SUPXE!'4E 82- 288 CC)U!?T O F THE STATF O F ?IOI.JTP.?JA 1983 STATE OF MONTAXA, Plaintiff and R e s p o n d e n t , KA2EN I. GIWY, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t , Appeal from: The D l s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T h i r d J u d l c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f P o v ~ e l l The H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t Boyd, J u d g e presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: I(arei1 I . G r a y , p r o s e t D e e r Lodge, l'lontana F o r Kespondent : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y q e n e r a l , Ifelen?, Montana T e d M i z n e r , County A t t o r n e v , D e e r Lodge, Montana - - - S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: MAY 19 1983 Filed: %. -.. . - - ..- -. . Clerk April 21, 198-3 Play 1 9 , 1983 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Court. Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e O p i n i o n of the D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s p r o s e from t h e s e n t e n c e s h e r e c e i v e d af t e r s h e p l e d g u i l t y t o two c o u n t s of f e l o n y t h e f t . On S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h two c o u n t s of felony theft District, false in Powell the District County. Court Court of the charged I Third Judicial d e f e n d a n t had s t a t e m e n t s t o P o w e l l County w e l f a r e e m p l o y e e s t o made receive f o o d s t a m p s i n t h e amount of $ 1 , 9 1 3 . Count I 1 c h a r g e d d e f e n d a n t failed and to $3,067.60 report income accurately i n AFDC p a y m e n t s . fraudulently received Defendant pled not g u i l t y t o both counts. Thereafter, in conjunction with a plea bargain, defendant w i t h d r e w h e r p l e a s of n o t g u i l t y and p l e d g u i l t y t o b o t h c o u n t s on May 2 0 , 1 9 8 2 . The s u b s t a n c e of t h e p l e a b a r g a i n was t h e S t a t e a g r e e d t o recommend a s e n t e n c e of t h r e e y e a r s s u s p e n d e d i f d e f e n d a n t pled g u i l t y t o both counts. presentence On investigation t h a t day defendant State recommended a and The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d set sentencing for J u l y 8, appeared a t the three-year 1982. sentencing hearing, suspended sentence, a and the the District Court ordered defendant serve t h r e e years i n p r i s o n w i t h a l l but t h i r t y days suspended. dant make restitution to The C o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d d e f e n - the State of Montana and serve the t h i r t y d a y s i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l a t t h e r a t e of two d a y s p e r week. Defendant a p p e a l s o n l y the t h i r ty-day sentence. The s u b s t a n c e of t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l is: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n n o t i m p o s i n g s e n t e n c e a s t h e S t a t e recommended. 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was p r e j u d i c e d by t h e p r e s e n - tence investigation report. Defendant first imposing a mended. T h i s Court contends three-year the suspended h a s upheld District sentence Court as the t h e d i s c r e t i o n of erred State by not recom- the District C o u r t i n s e n t e n c i n g a d e f e n d a n t who h a s p l e d g u i l t y a s p a r t of a plea bargain 515. i n S t a t e v. Mann ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 306, 546 P.2d H e r e , d e f e n d a n t was i n f o r m e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t t h e recommendation of the State was Defendant s t a t e d she understood. not binding upon the Court. T h e r e f o r e , she must a c c e p t t h e s e n t e n c e p r o n o u n c e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . N e x t , d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was p r e j u d i c e d the presentence investigation report. by Most of d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c - t i o n s s t e m from m a t e r i a l c o n t a i n e d i n p a r a g r a p h 9 o f t h e r e p o r t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d p a r a g r a p h 9 s t r i c k e n from t h e r e p o r t a t the sentencing hearing. I n S t a t e v. O r s b o r n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 4 8 0 , 486, 555 P.2d 5 0 9 , t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d , "A c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t s t i l l h a s a due p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e a g a i n s t a s e n t e n c e p r e d i c a t e d on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n . " For defendant to here claim she did not r e c e i v e due p r o c e s s , s h e m u s t show t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o n o u n c e d s e n t e n c e b a s e d upon m i s i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r e s e n t e n c e investigation report. t i o n 46-18-112, MCA, T h i s d e f e n d a n t h a s f a i l e d t o show. Sec- g o v e r n s t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e p r e s e n t e n c e in- v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t and we f i n d w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of p a r a g r a p h 9 , w h i c h was s t r i c k e n , t h e r e p o r t c o m p l i e d w i t h t h i s s e c t i o n . J u d g m e n t i s af f i r m e d . ustice Ckief J u s t i c e * I I = J&& We concur: =

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.