STATE v MARTINEZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 84-350 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1985 THE STATE O F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsANDREW MARTINEZ, JR., 11, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of 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 , I n and f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , The Honorable Diane G. B a r z , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O RECORD: F For Appellant: John I , . Adams, B i l l i n g s , 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 , H e l e n a , Montana Harold H a n s e r , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: March 1 4 , 1985 J u n e 6 , 1985 Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Following a jury verdict in the Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o 1 5 y e a r s i m p r i s o n ment f o r t h e s a l e o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s and 6 months f o r c a r r y ing a c o n c e a l e d weapon. concurrently with the The last sentences w e r e 5 years to suspended. be We served affirm. D e f e n d a n t r a i s e s two i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Was t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c - t i o n f o r criminal s a l e o f dangerous drugs? 2. Did sentencing the Court District defendant to a prison its abuse term discretion greater than by that imposed upon an a c c o m p l i c e ? In agent, January purchased bartender. 1984, a Mr. pound Nelson, of an marijuana undercover narcotics from J o h n F l o r e s , a N e l s o n a r r a n g e d t o buy an a d d i t i o n a l f o u r pounds o f m a r i j u a n a from F l o r e s on F e b r u a r y 8 , 1984. The t e s t i m o n y o f F l o r e s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t on F e b r u a r y 6 , 1984, d e f e n d a n t and L o u i e R i v e r a d r o v e F l o r e s t o a h o u s e a t 209 South 3 1 s t S t r e e t i n B i l l i n g s . instructed A t t h a t r e s i d e n c e , Rivera F l o r e s a s t o how t h e e x c h a n g e o f m a r i j u a n a - f o r - money would b e made a t t h e back d o o r . During t h e c o u r s e o f t h a t conversation, Flores t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e defendant s t a t ed: "Hey, you g u y s , d o n ' t mess u p . " On t h e morning o f F e b r u a r y 8 , 1 9 8 4 , Agent N e l s o n a r r e s t - e d F l o r e s f o r c r i m i n a l s a l e o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s and c o n s p i r a c y t o sell dangerous drugs. Following h i s a r r e s t , F l o r e s agreed t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t i e s and t o c o m p l e t e t h e m a r i juana s a l e scheduled f o r t h a t day. Flores told the police t h a t h e o b t a i n e d h i s m a r i j u a n a from R i v e r a and t h a t R i v e r a i n t u r n o b t a i n e d h i s m a r i j u a n a from d e f e n d a n t . A f t e r s e v e r a l t e l e p h o n e c a l l s , F l o r e s was a b l e t o cont a c t R i v e r a and was i n s t r u c t e d t o p r o c e e d t o t h e r e s i d e n c e a t 209 S o u t h 3 1 s t S t r e e t . that address Agent N e l s o n and F l o r e s a r r i v e d a t a t approximately 6:25 p.m. Defendant, Rivera and t h r e e o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e i n s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e . The testimony o f t h o s e i n s i d e t h e house i n d i c a t e d t h e following sequence o f e v e n t s : later, Rivera a r r i v e d f i r s t ; defendant a r r i v e d s h o r t l y a f t e r 6:00 p.m. with Rivera. D e f e n d a n t had a c o n v e r s a t i o n After t h e conversation, l i v i n g room and w a t c h e d t e l e v i s i o n . d e f e n d a n t went t o t h e R i v e r a went t o t h e b a c k d o o r where some c o n v e r s a t i o n was h e a r d . d a n t was i n t h e v i c i n i t y of from t h e b a c k defendant in door, the located living A t t h a t t i m e defen- t h e kitchen. in Rivera returned the kitchen, room. About and t a l k e d f i v e minutes to later, defendant l e f t . Other testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e persons a t t h e back d o o r w e r e Agent N e l s o n marked $100 b i l l s , and F l o r e s . F l o r e s gave Rivera 50 t o t a l i n g $ 5 , 0 0 0 , and r e c e i v e d f o u r p o u n d s o f m a r i j u a n a i n 8 z i p - l o c b a g s from R i v e r a . D e f e n d a n t was t h e house. apprehended by the police a f t e r he left During t h e a r r e s t , a small automatic p i s t o l f e l l from h i s w a i s t b a n d . The p o l i c e found 4 7 o f t h e marked $100 b i l l s i n d e f e n d a n t ' s b a c k p o c k e t and a b a g g i e o f m a r i j u a n a . The p o l i c e a l s o a r r e s t e d R i v e r a when h e l e f t t h e r e s i d e n c e . T h r e e o f t h e marked $100 b i l l s w e r e found i n R i v e r a ' s p o c k e t . The e v i d e n c e showed t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s one of the eight zip-loc bags of f i n g e r p r i n t was on marijuana sold t o Agent Nelson. I Was t h e evidence sufficient to support t h e conviction f o r criminal. s a l e o f dangerous drugs? Defendant contends t h a t he d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e in the s a l e o f m a r i j u a n a b e c a u s e h i s i n v o l v e m e n t was s u b s e q u e n t t o the time the marijuana-for-money exchange was completed. I n S t a t e v. 37 St.Rep. Davis 1958, (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 620 P.2d 1964, this Court 1 2 0 9 , 3.214-15, adopted the following d e f i n i t i o n of criminal s a l e : "To s e l l [ d r u g s ] means t o knowingly and intentionally transfer possession or ownership o f t h e [drugs] t o a n o t h e r f o r money o r o t h e r va l u a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . F o r a p e r s o n t o make s u c h a s a l e it i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t he p e r s o n a l l y handle a l l of t h e d e t a i l s of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . It is sufficient i f the transaction is a r r a n g e d by him and h a n d l e d by p e r s o n s u n d e r h i s d i r e c t i o n and i t i s s u f f i c e n t t o constitute a sale i f t h e person charged w i t h s a l e i s involved i n t h e t r a n s a c t i o n by a c c e p t i n g , h a n d l i n g , o r c o u n t i n g t h e money and d i r e c t i n g t h e I n o t h e r words, d e l i v e r y of t h e [drugs] t h e person charged with t h e s a l e does n o t have t o p e r s o n a l l y conduct a l l o f t h e various elements of delivery of the [ d r u g s ] and t h e t r a n s f e r o f t h e money. It i s s u f f i c i e n t i f he p a r t i c i p a t e s t h e r e i n t o s u c h an e x t e n t t h a t i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t h e i s a p a r t o f t h e making of t h e s a l e . " . I n S t a t e v. St.Rep. 669, Gladue (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 679 P.2d 1256, 1258, 4 1 672, w e s e t f o r t h t h e s t a n d a r d a p p l i e d by t h i s Court i n i t s review of t h e evidence: "The t e s t f o r t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e evidence to s u p p o r t t h e judgment of conviction i s whether t h e r e i s substant i a l evidence t o support t h e conviction, viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e State. S t a t e v . Lamb (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 646 P.2d 516, 39 St.Rep. 1021. The r e s o l u t i o n of factual matters is f o r t h e jury, and i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment, t h i s C o u r t must a f f i r m t h e decision of t h e jury. State v . Hardy ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 1185 Mont. 1301 604 P.2d 792, 37 St.Rep. 1. D i s p u t e d q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s w i l l n o t be considered o n appeal. State v. DeGeorge ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 3 5 , 566 P.2d 59." In S t a t e v. 4 1 St.Rep. Kutnyak (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 685 P.2d 901, 910-11, 1277, 1289, w e s t a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence: " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s defined a s such r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e a s a r e a s o n a b l e mind might a c c e p t conclusion. " as adequate to support a Defendant contends t h a t because o f c o n f l i c t i n g evidence, t h e t r i e r o f f a c t c o u l d n o t have found t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of t h e crime. lishes that: Defendant contends t h a t t h e evidence e s t a b h e was v i s i t i n g h i s f r i e n d s a t t h e r e s i d e n c e where t h e s a l e o c c u r r e d , m e r e l y made s m a l l t a l k w i t h R i v e r a , was i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e k i t c h e n o n l y b e c a u s e h e was u s i n g t h e bathroom, had $4,700 i n marked money b e c a u s e R i v e r a a s k e d him t o t r a n s p o r t t h e money t o t h e Brown J u g Tavern--which o n l y a l i t t l e o v e r a b l o c k away--and was t h a t h i s f i n g e r p r i n t was on t h e z i p - l o c b a g b e c a u s e , w h i l e u s i n g t h e b a t h r o o m , h e t o o k a q u a n t i t y o f m a r i j u a n a from t h e bag f o r h i m s e l f . The State's evidence showed that the defendant was p r e s e n t w i t h R i v e r a and F l o r e s a t t h e t i m e t h e i n i t i a l p l a n s w e r e made f o r t h e s a l e o f t h e $5,000 w o r t h o f m a r i j u a n a and that defendant told Rivera and Flores "don't mess up." D e f e n d a n t was a l s o p r e s e n t a t t h e r e s i d e n c e where t h e m a r i juana s a l e t o o k p l a c e and t a l k e d t o R i v e r a b e f o r e and a f t e r the sale. D e f e n d a n t had $4,700 o f marked $100 b i l l s i n h i s r e a r p o c k e t and h i s f i n g e r p r i n t was found on 1 o f t h e 8 b a g s o f m a r i j u a n a s o l d t o Agent Nelson. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t w h i l e t h e r e was evidence, We some c o n f l i c t i n t h e t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h a t c o n f l i c t was f o r t h e j u r y . hold t h a t , when viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e S t a t e , t h e r e c l e a r l y was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e conviction. I1 Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n by s e n t e n c i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a p r i s o n t e r m g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t imposed upon an accomplice? Defendant a r g u e s t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e o f years 15 y e a r s w i t h 5 s u s p e n d e d was u n f a i r b e c a u s e R i v e r a o n l y r e c e i v e d y e a r s w i t h 7 y e a r s suspended. 10 However, a s p o i n t e d o u t b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d e f e n d a n t was b o t h a s u p p l i e r a n d d r u g d e a l - f a c t o r s made it a p p r o p r i a t e t o s e n t e n c e him t o 1 5 y e a r s w i t h 5 s u s p e n d e d . There i s no b a s i s er. This along with other f o r c o m p a r i s o n o f t h a t s e n t e n c e , imposed a f t e r t r i a l , t o t h e plea bargain sentence o f Rivera. t h e defendant The s e n t e n c e imposed upon is w e l l within t h e provisions of § 45-9-101, MCA, w h i c h would a l l o w l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t . have We a p p e a l on t h e (Mont. previously issue of 1 9 8 4 ) , 676 P.2d refused to review d i s p a r i t y only. 229, 231, a sentence In S t a t e v. 41 St.Rep. 263, 266, on Lloyd this Court s t a t e d : "We w i l l n o t r e v i e w a s e n t e n c e on a p p e a l f o r mere i n e q u i t y o r d i s p a r i t y . Such a review i s t o b e conducted by t h e Sentence Review Division. S t a t e ex rel. Greely v. D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 180 Mont. 3 1 7 , 3 2 7 , 590 P.2d 1 1 0 4 , 1110. Rather, t h i s C o u r t w i l l o n l y review s e n t e n c e s f o r their legality. The s t a n d a r d f o r s u c h review i s whether the c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e sentencing process." T h i s C o u r t h a s a l s o s t a t e d t h a t "a sentence within t h e l i m i t s provided by s t a t u t e i s n o t a n abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . " S t a t e v. Lemmon (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 692 P.2d 455, 459, 41 S t . R e p . W e hold t h a t t h e District Court d i d not abuse i t s d i s - c r e t i o n by s e n t e n c i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a p r i s o n t e r m g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t imposed upon h i s a c c o m p l 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.