STATE v HOPPE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 95-185 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1997 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, WALTER PAUL HOPPE, Defendant APPEAL FROM: and Appellant. District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial In and for the County of Ravalli, The Honorable Ed McLean, Judge presiding. District, COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: William Helena, For F. Hooks, Montana State Appellate Respondent: Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Jennifer Anders, Ass't Montana George Corn, Montana Ravalli Submitted Attorney Attorney County General, General, Attorney, on Briefs: Decided: Filed: Defender, Helena Hamilton November January 21, 30, 1996 1997 Justice W. William Leaphart Pursuant 1995 to Internal cited with result to I, Paragraph 3 (c), the Section as precedent document the Rules, Operating delivered and shall the Clerk State of Reporter Court. decision Court Publishing the Supreme shall by its Supreme of Montana following be published the Opinion filing Court not as a public and by a report Company and be West of its Publishing Company. Walter The Appellant, First Hoppe District Judicial (Hoppe), Court's appeals revocation deferred imposition of sentence for imposition of sentence for of felony deferred domestic The issues 1) Did terms the 2) before this Court are District to motion the his assault Twenty- five-year and abuse. six-month We affirm. as follows: the District Court have authority of Hoppe's deferred imposition of written judgment had been filed? Did the Hoppe's from to enforce the sentence before Court abuse its discretion withdraw his guilty plea? in denying BACKGROUND In November District Court, against of Hoppe. crimes of Ravalli the State County, The Information of for charged in offenses. domestic Court and entered 1992, a plea District In July and counsel pleas of of record. of abuse 2 to agreement his moved the an Information with Hoppe pleas (State) file and felony Hoppe withdrew guilty Montana leave misdemeanor arraigned entered 1991, committing assault. of not guilty was executed pleas of not the Hoppe was to both by Hoppe guilty and On July which it the 21, 1992, deferred felony The certain District imposition assault charge. the of Hoppe's months of terms six deferment were the including and placed under After the hearing, the Adult supervision the Department of Judgment was not of filed on abuse concurrently Hoppe "not on possess Hoppe was released Probation Institutions. with years domestic run that in and Parole The District the clerk of days before the written driving under the Court's court until influence. July 1992. 31, On July 23, 1992, eight Hoppe pled filed, guilty to petitioned to alleging his Hoppe's 18, of for his Hoppe appeared At disposition. the by explaining that alcohol as he was not going length of his District Court deferred imposition sentence. felony assault domestic In guilty abuse and a the District attempted to to his drink influence and parole. the having sentence Court justify last for three the violating the terms the deferred a five-year six-month term to of term the moved the the imposition prison on of years hearing, and revoked to his drinks Following of Hoppe was sentenced on the misdemeanor charge. a September pleas. be able guilty sentence charge before Hoppe term). Hoppe of counsel to of under was The State of probation he was merely deferral found conditions with judgment imposition driving hearing, behavior (the deferred conviction a violation On August for revoke that constituted of the three the to condition a hearing for on the any intoxicants." written sentence and or consume of conducted charge conditions, Division Court In of support 1992 hearing, of his Hoppe request, 3 Hoppe withdraw alleged that his his attorney told went to did not would plead be guilty charged that to his of that the contrary would elect to charge Two years later, Hoppe filed petition for post-conviction grounds, "as all issues and, to District Court also any for to raise petition, the effective assistance Second Amended of violating sentence the filed in terms and designating disposition the of instant appealable relief to file counsel that of before appeal challenging 4 claims Hoppe the the Mr. had declaring deferred offender. District the District Hoppe Hoppe's been Court the petition reviewing District 1995, grounds However, an amended After of on those Relief." The matters the are Hoppe a non-dangerous these that Petition of counsel. and conditions ordered procedural concluded December The on matter." in perjury. dismissed seek Court Judgment the may not this of was a the in assistance District may her be Hoppe leave ineffective if post-conviction Court Post-Conviction granted Hoppe there with for District asserted Hoppe a Petition "regarding wish Mr. her counsel that statement, a petition the jail." motion. relief grounds thus, pursuant 1995, to Mrs. and I my wife go since he "if that that would that taped Hoppe's if Hoppe's the denied of state, she to orally January him statement, Court In the Hoppes a tape-recorded relief. told characterization. to State of perjury counsel and explained were the be convicted charges this given possibility the perjury he had testimony District would that denied previously trial wife with counsel stated his Hoppe alleged trial. Hoppe's had him that given issued a Hoppe guilty imposition of Following Court, Hoppe Court's jurisdiction to revoke District Court's his deferred denial of his imposition of sentence to withdraw motion his and the guilty plea. STANDARD OF REVIEW Both issues interpretation court's the in The of law is law is whether correct. 271 Mont. Revenue (1990), Court 459, 470, not discretion. 903 P.2d 202, the 17, 889 P.2d State 204 1180, (citing the of District review the court's County v. Union 680; Steer, 474-75, court's disturb its involve standard 898 P.2d a district and will abused Carbon 245 Mont. reviews only 11, law. conclusions (1995), 346, case the of this sentencing decision State v. a district Reserve v. 601, of Coal Co. Department of 603-04. decision for the district unless DeSalvo v. of (1995), Blanchard 's interpretation Inc. 803 P.2d court 273 (1995), This legality court Mont. 343, 270 Mont. 1182). DISCUSSION 1) Did the District Court have authority to conditions of Hoppe's deferred imposition before the written judgment had been filed? At a imposition July of 21, sentence 1992 hearing, the District enforce the of sentence Court deferred by explaining: No cause appearing why sentence should not be imposed, it is hereby the judgment of this Court that you're guilty of the underlying offenses, to wit: Assault, a felony, and domestic abuse, a misdemeanor. It is further the judgment of this Court that the imposition of sentence be deferred for a period of three The sentences are to run concurrent years on each count. to each other on the following conditions: . . 5 You will possess any establishment intoxicants; Following the of Adult terms and not consume any intoxicants. You will not intoxicants. You will not go into any whose principal business is the sale of that includes bars and casinos. hearing, Probation the and Parole rules and of signed the probation placed Hoppe under and ordered Next, and conditions. read court Hoppe Montana signed subject met with rules by him of the his supervision to of probation probation. Hoppe all its officer The Montana included the following condition: You shall comply with all city, county, state, and federal laws and ordinances and conduct yourself as a good citizen. You shall report any arrests or contacts with law enforcement to your Probation/Parole Officer within 72 hours. Two days under the after the influence charge. In Hoppe's deferred violated of one of influence. the of to of since support of (1986), 222 Mont. failed this to was arrested pled State State to to alleging deferment to signed and filed the the District Court's oral contends the that revoke that by driving petitioned driving guilty petitioned sentence, of for Hoppe under revoke the Hoppe's written judgment court. that He jurisdiction court Court contends effect. the of same day the clerk sentence arrest, conditions District Hoppe final this Hoppe and subsequently imposition the the alcohol of On the sentence, with light hearing, enforce it the had 438, include conditions not contention, District yet Howe 722 P.2d 1170. a dangerous 6 Court of been sentence the deferred reduced cites to In to State Enfinser, offender did had no not have imposition writing. In v. Enfinger the district designation at the oral On the sentencing. before filing its back explained that sentences written into Enfinger court earlier 722 P.2d found at it and judgment, not the conditions, to informed of as present court court v. Diaz holding (N.M. in Enfincfer, the court has the authority than modify a the by deferment to read enforcement signed of conditions. effective from 7 501, upon that the any at 502. sentence is appeal. presents the orally issue pronounced had has been MCA. the fully in Hoppe pronouncement, informed those were and P.2d "rendered 46-18-102, oral at court orally a final 722 P.2d this Hoppe well ruling district Here, Court's fully in case the Section and was issue deferment law. District and he violated and subject of not an oral to enforce sentence. conditions that present whether is 673 the is Enfinaer, Enfinser the affirming such 19831, court "I [ilt change the Enfinser, district court judgment." to Hoppe of trial court imposing do so. held, can of officer, probation. conditions trial by the written required probation deferment ruling Court dispositive during his the of the court" to In rather authority was necessary The for offender. the not the reasons a dangerous an oral contrast of whether its and brought hearing. be Court's is court the State this "final" it entry (quoting In that additional state Enfinger, district objections, and that However, to sentence, that 1174 an the Enfinger's to court's before for sentenced Over 1171. established time orally judgment, had failed Enfinger district same day it open was he met with rules of conditions the Montana of his We hold that pronouncement point on. Hoppe's in Accordingly, open we affirm of the Hoppe's v. will Miller for cause." permitted only and improperly it 248 to plea the if it the the conditions P.2d 810 of his was act, or "good should was under at The when determining is plea whether of unduly in making 310. The was ignorant entered 810 P.2d 309. plea of the be his and plea, or mistake some three a State 308, a guilty defendant of discretion. A change the denying withdrawal of by hope or fear plea be withdrawn the 197, of either be considered factors or which a defendant's guilty include: 1. The adequacy of as to the defendant's 2. plea; that consequences Miller, should the in an abuse MCA. appears influenced allow withdrawal 46-16-105(2), appears to 194, Mont. allowing apprehension. are not absent Section enforce sentence. be affirmed standard if decision (1991), rights of to Court abuse its discretion to withdraw his guilty plea? judge's plea decision imposition District motion A trial guilty Court's deferred Did the Hoppe's 2) District The promptness the District understanding of the Court's interrogation of the plea; motion to withdraw the prior The fact that the defendant's plea was apparently 3. the result of a plea bargain in which the guilty plea was given in exchange for dismissal of another charge. Miller, maintain 810 P.2d that the at plea 309. bargain coercive. Rather, Hoppe pled to and his trial, perjury. Since if Hoppe In wife does the instant case, he entered guilty testified not believing she contend 8 into does not the State was with that would that Hoppe if he proceeded be prosecuted the plea bargain for he entered into adequacy with the of the District understanding At of the asked of guilty plea established Hoppe explained asked the terms whether that of making plea inquired of of his specific of his focus as on to whether the he had been plea change, the the Hoppe's following of and that Following for his these to to his as of plea. The court that Further, Hoppe's crime. whether guilty and understood the plea many of of whether plea he had not questions, guilty. rights the court he understood was voluntary, medication. Hoppe been the a court his In addition, threatened, influence was voluntary, change he was waiving committed not Hoppe rights. basis he realized from rights those factual plea. and explained influenced District in findings: the made the plea a waiver he was under his Hoppe's consequences that his change court to having Hoppe we will interrogation he understood was the and admitted to the Hoppe whether coercive, Court's District understanding was plea. hearing the guilty, the State Court I'll find further that he understands the nature of the charges and fully understands the consequences of his that there have been no promises guilty pleas; further, made to him other than the plea bargain agreement; that he understands the sentencing judge is not bound by that agreement; that there have been no threats made against him; that this is a voluntary plea on his part; that he is satisfied with the competence of his counsel; that he is not suffering from any mental or physical disability such as he does not understand the proceedings or such as might induce him to plead guilty; further, I'll make the same finding concerning the medication and that he is not under the influence of any other drugs or alcohol. It is clear from consequences of the record a change that of Hoppe was fully plea and proceeded voluntarily. 9 advised to change as to his the plea Two months after after revocation of moved to guilty protect his wife wife has left protect the her, Court found that state sufficient Court's warrant entered Court the after Court. We concur: Hoppe his withdraw was was not allow timely timely or that the grounds a withdrawal of the plea. a thorough the Accordingly, and adequate result of we affirm any compulsion to The that of not, decision did not Aside plea. agree with in motion the original interrogation coercion District it the we asserted Hoppe's the his plea. and he pled NOW that feels withdrawal month HoPPe that vows. guilty one sentence, contended marriage his and of and he no longer to motion imposition holding and was not counsel. and motion reasons whether District the to sentenced plea. jurisdiction he seeks originally deferred his to not his withdraw guilty from he was plea by the by the of State the the do was District or District his
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.
