STATE v GRANT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 54-356 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA O R F F 1985 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsCLIFFORD GRANT, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL F O : R M D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t h 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 Chouteau, The Honorable J o e l G. Roth, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O RECORD: F For A p p e l l a n t : C l i f f o r d G r a n t , p r o s e t Havre, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana A l l i n Cheetham, Choteau County A t t o r n e y , F o r t Benton, Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Clerk J u n e 1 9 , 1985 August 2 2 , 1985 M r . J u s t i c e Frank R. t h e Court. Morrison, Following a non-jury d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of Jr. t r i a l i n t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l Dis- t r i c t C o u r t , County o f C h o t e a u , d e f e n d a n t C l i f f o r d G r a n t was c o n v i c t e d o f t h e o f f e n s e o f o p e r a t i n g a motor v e h i c l e w h i l e designated an 5 61-11-213, Choteau credit habitual G r a n t was MCA. County for traffic Jail, 16 d a y s with offender, in violation s e n t e n c e d t o one y e a r six months already spent Deputy Sheriff suspended in the David Baker in the and jail. of given Defendant appeals. Choteau County observed a s m a l l r e d c a r l e a v e t h e high.way, t u r n o n t o a r o a d and p r o c e e d u n d e r n e a t h a r a i l r o a d b r i d g e o u t s i d e o f Loma, Montana, on t h e evening of January 25, S i n c e it seemed u n u s u a l for a 1984. c a r t o b e i n t h a t l n c t a i o n , Deputy B a k e r a l s o p u l l e d o f f t h e r o a d t o o b s e r v e t h e v e h i c l e and i t s o c c u p a n t s . Once t h e dome l i g h t i n t h e c a r came o n , t h e deputy observed t h e occupants with noting his field glasses, both the hair color and c l o t h i n g of each i n d i v i d u a l . When t h e o c c u p a n t s l i t a p i p e , Deputy car Baker William approached Buerkle, to the roll down and his asked the window. passenger, The smell of m a r i j u a n a was p r e v a l e n t and a p i p e l a y on t h e c a r s e a t . Both occupants w e r e drug immediately a r r e s t e d f o r possession of p a r a p h e r n a 1i a . A d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e check r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n the driver's habitual seat, defendant Grant, had t r a f f i c o f f e n d e r i n August o f been 1983. declared an Deputy B a k e r i n f o r m e d G r a n t t h a t h e would b e i s s u e d a n o t i c e t o a p p e a r f o r operating a offender. The two w e r e t h e n e s c o r t e d t o t h e S h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e and "booked. vehicle while designated an habitua 1 t r a f f i c " An a f f i d a v i t and m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e t r a f f i c o f f e n s e was f i l e d i n t h e District Court on February 8, 1984. The information was issued. in T h a t same d a y , d e f e n d a n t made h i s i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e court on that court-appointed charge. attorney and Defendant requested t h e p r o c e e d i n g was a continued. The t r i a l judge a l s o s e t b a i l a t $500, n o t i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t was p r e s e n t l y " s e r v i n g some k i n d o f Justice here Court in Fort a sentence o u t of Benton," but that once the that s e n t e n c e was s e r v e d , d e f e n d a n t c o u l d p o s t h i s b a i l . Defendant's him at his attorney entered a plea a r r a i g n m e n t on March t r i a l was h e l d A p r i l 11, 1984. 14, of not guilty for 1984, and a non-jury A t t r i a l , Deputy Baker t e s t i - f i e d t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l s h e had o b s e r v e d t h r o u g h h i s f i e l d g l a s s e s o c c u p i e d t h e same s e a t s when h e a r r i v e d a t t h e c a r ; t h a t h e had n o t n o t i c e d any s w i t c h i n g o f p l a c e s ; and t h a t h e had n o t o b s e r v e d t h e o p e n i n g of any c a r d o o r . D e f e n d a n t 1s father, Charles Grant, testified that he r e q u e s t e d h i s son and W i l l i a m B u e r k l e t o d r i v e t h e c a r from Havre t o G r e a t F a l l s on J a n u a r y 25, t r a d e t h e c a r f o r another. 1 9 8 4 , and t o a t t e m p t t o H e requested Buerkle t o d r i v e t h e a u t o m o b i l e a s h i s s o n no l o n g e r had a v a l i d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e . William Buerkle testified that he drove the car from Havre t o G r e a t F a l l s and from G r e a t F a l l s t o t h e t u r n o f f n e a r Loma. The c a r t h e n became s t u c k i n t h e mud and d e f e n d a n t took over t h e d r i v e r ' s Upon cross-examination s e a t i n an e f f o r t t o f r e e t h e c a r . of Buerkle, t h e S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d an a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by B u e r k l e on F e b r u a r y 8 , 1984, s t a t i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t had d r i v e n t h e a u t o m o b i l e from G r e a t F a l l s t o Loma. The d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y was g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t o f William Buerkle. ~ The t r i a l judge found t h F e b r u a r y 8 , 1984, s t a t e m e n t o f William Buerkle t o b e more c r e d i b l e t h a n h i s trial. on Relying testimony, a motor of fender. t h e judge vehicle Buerkle's affidavit and testimony a t Deputy B a k e r ' s found t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f o p e r a t i n g while being adjudged an habitual traffic D e f e n d a n t r a i s e s e l e v e n i s s u e s i n a p r o se a p p e a l of h i s conviction. major The State categories. condenses With some those issues amplification, into we three find the S t a t e ' s i s s u e s t o be adequate. 1. Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y a c t e d w i t h i n t h e r a n g e o f competence demanded o f a t t o r n e y s i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s ? 2. Whether the District Court properly admitted process rights the s t a t e m e n t s i g n e d by B u e r k l e ? 3. Whether defendant's due were violated? I n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel r e q u i r e s s p e c i f i c a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s by c o u n s e l which p r e j u d i c e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e and S t a t e v . Boyer resu1.t i n t h e d e n i a l o f a f a i r t r i a l . 1 9 8 5 ) , 695 P.2d 829, 8 3 1 , 4 2 S t . R e p . 247, 250. (Mont. I n Boyer, we a d o p t e d t h e t e s t s e t f o r t h by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t for d e t e r m i n i n g when ineffective counsel a s s i s t a n c e of has occurred. " F i r s t , t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t show t h a t c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t . T h i s r e q u i r e s showing t h a t c o u n s e l made e r r o r s s o s e r i o u s t h a t c o u n s e l was n o t f u n c t i o n i n g a s t h e ' c o u n s e l ' g u a r a n t e e d t h e d e f e n d a n t by t h e S i x t h Amendment. Second, t h e d e f e n d a n t must show t h a t t h e d e f i c i e n t p e r f o r m a n c e prejudiced t h e defense. T h i s r e q u i r e s showing t h a t counsel's e r r o r s w e r e so serious a s t o deprive the d e f e n d a n t o f a f a i r t r i a l , a t r i a l whose r e s u l t i s re7 i a b l e . " S t r i c k l a n d v . Washington (1984) , U.S. I , 104 S . C t . 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 6 7 4 , 693. Defendant a1l e g a t i o n points us t o no e v i d e n c e i n support of that his counsel's performance he has failed prove Furthermore, d e p r i v e d him o f a f a i r t r i a l . to his was his deficient. counsel's error T h e r e f o r e , w e f i n d no m e r i t t o defendant's claim of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel. 11. D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s that t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o i n c l u d e a r e f e r e n c e t o W i l l i a m B u e r k l e ' s F e b r u a r y 8 , 1 9 8 4 , sworn s t a t e - ment in its affidavit and motion for leave to file the information against defendant imposed - post facto law on ex defendant. Defendant misunderstands - post facto law. ex "[Alny statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto." Beazell v. Ohio (1925). 269 U.S. 167, 169-170, 46 S.Ct. 68, 68, 70 L.Ed. 216, 217. Buerkle's prior statement has none of these effects. The law controlling the operation of a motor vehicle while designated an habitual traffic offender was the same when defendant performed the offense as it was when defendant was tried. There is no - post facto problem. ex In addition, pursuant to 5 26-1-302(7), MCA, and Rule 613, Mont.R.Evid., the February 8, 1984, statement was admis- sible as a prior inconsistent statement. Buerkel was given the opportunity to explain the statement. Once the opposing statements were admitted, it was within the province of the fact finder, in this case the trial judge, to determine which statement was more credible. F e find no error in the trial l court's reliance on the prior inconsistent statement. Defendant's due process rights have not been violated. Defendant contends that failure to file until February 8, 1984, the information charging him with the traffic offense prejudiced him and violated S S 46-7-1.01 through -103, MCA . Defendant raises this issue for the first time on appeal. Therefore, we will not consider it. The judge did not err in ordering a presentence investigation. Pursuant to 5 46-18-111, MCA, the judge, in his discretion, may order a presentence investigation when the potential penalty is less than one year in prison. The judge explained his reasons for the investigation, stating: "Now, b e c a u s e t h e r e i s a s u b s t a n t i a l p e n a l t y i n volved h e r e i n t h i s c a s e , I d o n ' t want t o s e n t e n c e I d o want t o o b t a i n a r e c o r d o f you a t t h i s t i m e . y o u r t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s , and I d o want t o o r d e r a presentence r e p o r t h e r e t o be prepared by t h e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e b e f o r e I s e n t e n c e you on t h i s T r . p . 61. charge . . . ." Defendant h a s Hi1.1 f a i l e d t o show how s p e n d i n g o n e week a t Top R e c o v e r y C e n t e r , 1984, p r e j u d i c e d h i s a p p e a l . from May 3 1 , 1984 u n t i l June 6, H i s i n i t i a l b r i e f was n o t f i l e d u n t i l F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1985. Punishment o f d e f e n d a n t a t t h i s t i m e i s n o t c o n t r a r y t o t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . D e f e n d a n t c r e a t e d t h e d e l a y when he chose t o p o s t b a i l pending t h i s appeal. The c o n v i c t i o n and W e concur: sentence of defendant / i s affirmed.

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.