No. 12784
I N THE SUPKEME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA
F
1975
THE STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and ~ e s p o n d e n t ,
-vs -
FREDDIE STARR GRIFFIN,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: District Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Paul H a t f i e l d , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record :
For A p p e l l a n t :
Dennis Conner argued, Great F a l l s , Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y General, He1 ena,
Montana
C a r l J. K r a f t argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
J. Fred Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , Great F a l l s ,
Montana
Michael T. Greely, appeared, Deputy County A t t o r n e y ,
Great F a l l s , Montana
Submitted: January 14, 1975
Decided : MAY - 6 1975
Filed: :yibj 5 ~tj/S
-
Clerk
Mr. ~ u s t i c eGene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.
This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of c o n v i c t i o n f o r t h e
s a l e of dangerous drugs e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Cascade
County.
Defendant Freddie S t a r r G r i f f i n was charged i n t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t on August 31, 1973, on Count I w i t h t h e crime of
t h e s a l e of dangerous drugs and on Court I1 w i t h a s s a u l t on a
j u v e n i l e boy w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o commit a f e l o n y , t o - w i t : In-
famous crime a g a i n s t n a t u r e . Court appointed c o u n s e l appeared
w i t h defendant and he was a r r a i g n e d b e f o r e Hon. Truman Bradford
on September 5 , 1973. A p l e a of n o t g u i l t y was e n t e r e d and
t r i a l was s e t f o r September 24, 1973 a t t h e hour of 9:30 a.m.
The s t a t e on September 10, 1973 f i l e d n o t i c e of i n t e n t
t o seek i n c r e a s e d punishment pursuant t o s e c t i o n 95-1506, R.C.M.
1947, a s a p r i o r convicted f e l o n pursuant t o s e c t i o n 94-4713,
R.C.M. 1947. The s t a t e l i s t e d 8 p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s of robbery
and b u r g l a r y i n t h e s t a t e s of C a l i f o r n i a , Nevada and Montana
on which defendant was sentenced t o p r i s o n on 6 , and given proba-
t i o n on 2. The 1957 Montana robbery c o n v i c t i o n i n d i c a t e s a
t e n y e a r sentence a t Deer Lodge, Montana. O September 19, 1973
n
defendant f i l e d pro s e t h r e e handwritten motions i n good and
a c c e p t a b l e form w i t h t h e c o u r t : (1) That t h e $25,000 b a i l was
e x c e s s i v e and h e , being o f Indian blood and poor, suggested b a i l of
$10,000 t o uphold t h e f a i r n e s s of t h e c o u r t t o a l l concerned.
(2) That d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u r t appointed a t t o r n e y be dismissed.
That defendant i s t o r e t a i n counsel of h i s c h o i c e , a l l e g i n g i t
imperative t h e r e q u e s t be granted a s soon a s p o s s i b l e because he
had been i n custody f o u r weeks and had had one c o u r t appearance
w i t h t h e c o u r t appointed counsel. (3) A motion t o d i s q u a l i f y
Judge Bradford on t h e grounds t h a t v a r i o u s sources had informed
him t h a t Hon. Bradford i s p r e j u d i c e d a g a i n s t I n d i a n s and defendant
i s an American I n d i a n ; t h a t Judge Bradford be dismissed from t h e
c a s e , w i t h no d i s r e s p e c t , b u t only a s a w e l l i n t e n t i o n e d r e q u e s t .
Hon. Truman Bradford heard t h e motions on September 19,
1973. The c o u r t g r a n t e d defendant on an o r d e r t o show c a u s e
u n t i l September 21, 1973 t o hear t h e motion f o r d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n
of t h e judge f o r a c t u a l b i a s ; t h e c o u r t f u r t h e r gave defendant
u n t i l September 20, 1973, a t 5 p.m., t o notify the court a s t o
whether he had r e t a i n e d h i s own counsel. O September 21, 1973,
n
Hon. Paul H a t f i e l d , s i t t i n g f o r Judge Bradford, and defendant
appearing w i t h o r i g i n a l c o u r t appointed c o u n s e l , g r a n t e d t h e
motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of c o u n s e l , a p u b l i c d e f e n d e r , a s de-
fendant had no funds f o r p r i v a t e counsel. The remaining two pro
s e motions were n o t a c t e d on and were s t r i c k e n a t t h a t time; t h e
c o u r t r u l i n g defendant would have t o a c t through counsel. Hon.
Robert Nelson heard t h e motion t o d i s q u a l i f y Hon. Truman Brad-
f o r d f o r b i a s on September 21, 1973, defendant appeared i n c o u r t
w i t h t h e second p u b l i c defender. Notion was denied and t r i a l
r e s e t f o r November 26, 1973. O September 26, 1973, new
n
counsel f i l e d d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of Judge Bradford under t h e
statute. Judge Paul H a t f i e l d accepted j u r i s d i c t i o n on September
28, 1973 and on t h e same day Judge H a t f i e l d reduced bond t o t h e
sum o f $2,000. The bond was approved October 1 5 , 1973, and
defendant was r e l e a s e d .
New counsel f i l e d and argued a motion t o suppress evidence
which t h e c o u r t denied on November 28, 1973 a f t e r b r i e f s had been
filed. Meantime, t h e November 26, 1973 t r i a l d a t e had been
vacated. O December 5 , 1973, t r i a l d a t e was s e t f o r January 14,
n
1974. O December 1 0 , 1973, motion was f i l e d by second c o u r t
n
appointed counsel t o be r e l i e v e d a s c o u n s e l , a t d e f e n d a n t ' s r e -
quest. Defendant appeared w i t h paid counsel on December 12
and t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e motion f o r t h e p u b l i c defender t o with-
draw. Paid counsel t h e n , on January 7 , 1974 on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
grounds, f i l e d motions f o r d i s m i s s a l and continuance. On
January 1 0 , 1974 h e a r i n g was had, t h e motions denied, and t r i a l
r e s e t f o r January 15, 1974.
O January 14 defendant, w i t h p a i d c o u n s e l , moved t h e
n
c o u r t t o withdraw t h e p l e a of n o t g u i l t y t o t h e charge of s a l e
of dangerous drugs and e n t e r a p l e a of g u i l t y . Court s e t t h e
d a t e f o r s e n t e n c i n g a s February 1 4 , 1974, t o allow time f o r pre-
sentence investigation. Defendant continued on bond.
O February 14 d e f e n d a n t ' s paid counsel appeared w i t h a
n
deputy county a t t o r n e y b u t defendant f a i l e d t o appear and a bench
warrant of a r r e s t was i s s u e d . Defendant was l a t e r a r r e s t e d i n
C a l i f o r n i a , r e t u r n e d t o Montana, and appeared w i t h paid counsel
on March 27, 1974. The c o u r t g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o con-
t i n u e s e n t e n c i n g u n t i l A p r i l 3 , 1974 a t 2 p.m. O A p r i l 3 , 1974,
n
a t 11:40 a.m. defendant f i l e d pro s e a 5 page handwritten motion
and b r i e f t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a and r e q u e s t e d he be given
ample time t o r e t a i n a n o t h e r a t t o r n e y and prepare f o r t r i a l . His
motion was aimed g e n e r a l l y a t h i s p a i d c o u n s e l . He a l l e g e d he
was coerced and t h r e a t e n e d by h i s paid counsel and t h e deputy
It
county a t t o r n e y w i t h imprisonment of l e n g t h y endurance"; t h a t
he was f o r c e d t o change h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e ;
t h a t he was promised a term of s i x months i n t h e county j a i l f o r
h i s p l e a , a n d t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e a s s a u l t charge and p e t i t i o n f o r
i n c r e a s e d punishment. The t r i a l judge, Hon. Paul H a t f i e l d , heard
t h e motion a t 2 p.m. t h a t day, A p r i l 3 , 1974, denied t h e motion
t o withdraw d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a , and pronounced s e n t e n c e , i . e . ten
y e a r s a t hard l a b o r . He f u r t h e r g r a n t e d p a i d c o u n s e l ' s r e q u e s t
t o be r e l i e v e d of f u r t h e r o b l i g a t i o n a s counsel and appointed t h e
p u b l i c defender a s c o u n s e l f o r defendant f o r appeal.
O A p r i l 5 , 1974 t h e s t a t e moved f o r , and was g r a n t e d ,
n
d i s m i s s a l of t h e remaining charges a g a i n s t defendant. Judge
H a t f i e l d granted a p e t i t i o n by defendant (through c o u n s e l ) t o
proceed w i t h an a p p e a l i n forma p a u p e r i s and t h a t he be f u r n i s h e d
a transcript. Counsel f i l e d n o t i c e of a p p e a l on b e h a l f of defendant.
I n t h e meantime, defendant proceeded pro s e w i t h a
handwritten 5 page motion t o v a c a t e t h e sentence of t h e t r i a l c o u r t
which he based, i n t h e main, on a l l e g e d : undue i n f l u e n c e by
people who were f i n a n c i a l l y involved when he v i o l a t e d h i s bond
agreement; l a c k of a s s i s t a n c e a t s e n t e n c i n g ; t h r e a t s by t h e
deputy county a t t o r n e y ; and g e n e r a l VIP p r e s s u r e by people of
g r e a t i n f l u e n c e and p r e s t i g e . A s e p a r a t e motion was f i l e d
11
requesting a s p e c i f i c " a t t o r n e y by name t o r e p l a c e t h e a t t o r n e y
a s s i g n e d t o him by t h e c o u r t . Defendant was assigned new counsel
who appears on t h i s a p p e a l i n h i s b e h a l f b u t he i s n o t t h e counsel
d e s i g n a t e d i n h i s pro s e motion t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
Two i s s u e s a r e presented t o t h i s Court f o r review:
1. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n a c c e p t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s
p l e a of g u i l t y w i t h o u t f i r s t determining t h a t t h e p l e a was made
v o l u n t a r i l y and w i t h an understanding of t h e charge?
2. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s
motion t o withdraw h i s p l e a of g u i l t y ?
Defendant a l l e g e s t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n a c c e p t i n g h i s p l e a
of g u i l t y without f i r s t determining i f t h e p l e a was made volun-
t a r i l y and w i t h an understanding of t h e charge. Defendant plead
g u i l t y on January 1 4 , 1974 t o t h e charge of s a l e s of dangerous
drugs b e f o r e d i s t r i c t judge Hon. Paul H a t f i e l d . Defendant a l -
l e g e s t h a t a t t h e time t h e judge d i d n o t a d v i s e him o f h i s
r i g h t s n o r of t h e p o s s i b l e sentence he could r e c e i v e r e s u l t i n g
from h i s p l e a of g u i l t y . Defendant c i t e s two s t a t u t e s which
he r e l i e s upon t o s u p p o r t h i s argument. (1) Section 95-1606,
R.C.M. 1947, which r e a d s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
11
Procedure on arraignment. The arraignment i n any
c o u r t i n t h i s s t a t e must be conducted i n t h e f o l l o w i n g
manner :
(e) 11
*** The c o u r t may r e f u s e t o a c c e p t a
p l e a of g u i l t y and s h a l l n o t a c c e p t t h e p l e a of g u i l t y
without f i r s t determining t h a t t h e p l e a i s v o l u n t a r y
w i t h an understanding of t h e charge. 11
(2) Section 95-1902, R.C.M. 1947, which r e a d s :
"Plea of g p i l t y . Before o r d u r i n g t r i a l a p l e a of
g u i l t y may be accepted when:
"(a) t h e defendant e n t e r s a p l e a of g u i l t y
i n open c o u r t ; and
"(b) t h e c o u r t has informed t h e defendant
of t h e consequences of h i s p l e a and of t h e maximum
p e n a l t y provided by law which may be imposed upon
acceptance of such p l e a .
" A t any time b e f o r e o r a f t e r judgment t h e
c o u r t may f o r good cause shown permit t h e p l e a
of g u i l t y t o be withdrawn and a p l e a of n o t g u i l t y
substituted. II
A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e t h e two s t a t u t e s c i t e d t o t h e
Court and h e r e t o f o r e quoted. Each i s p r o p e r l y i d e n t i f i e d and
i s designed t o c o n t r o l i t s own s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n i n t h e c r i m i n a l
procedural process. I f i t were o t h e r w i s e , we would n o t have
two s t a t u t e s on t h e same s u b j e c t m a t t e r . It would appear from
t h e r e c o r d h e r e t h a t we a r e only concerned w i t h s e c t i o n 95-1902,
R.C.M. 1947.
Defendant p o i n t s o u t t h a t s e c t i o n 95-1902, R.C.M. 1947,
was taken from t h e I l l i n o i s Code of Criminal Procedure, Chap. 38,
s e c t i o n 115-2, and c i t e s People v. Washington, 5 I11.2d 58, 124
N.E.2d 890, a s support f o r h i s p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e judge must
inform t h e defendant of h i s r i g h t s and t h e consequences of a
g u i l t y p l e a b e f o r e he can a c c e p t a g u i l t y p l e a from defendant.
I n Washington t h e record did n o t contain a statement
by t h e c o u r t a d v i s i n g defendant, who was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l ,
of t h e e f f e c t of h i s p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h e charge of murder. The
judgment was r e v e r s e d and remanded on t h e b a s i s of I l l i n o i s
Revised S t a t u t e s 1953, Chap. 38, par. 732, which s t a t e s :
1I
I n c a s e s where t h e p a r t y p l e a d s ' g u i l t y ' , such
plea s h a l l not be entered u n t i l t h e court s h a l l
have f u l l y explained t o t h e accused t h e conse-
quences of e n t e r i n g such p l e a ; a f t e r which, i f t h e
p a r t y p e r s i s t s i n pleading ' g u i l t y ' , such p l e a
s h a l l be r e c e i v e d and recorded, and t h e c o u r t s h a l l
proceed t o r e n d e r judgment and execution t h e r e o n ,
a s i f he had been found g u i l t y by a j u r y . "
It was a l s o r e v e r s e d and remanded on Court Rule 27A ( I l l ,
Rev.Stat. 1953, Chap. 110, par. 259.27a) which provides i n p a r t :
"The i n q u i r i e s o f t h e c o u r t , and t h e answers o f
t h e defendant t o determine whether t h e accused
understands h i s r i g h t s t o be r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l ,
and comprehends t h e n a t u r e of t h e crime w i t h which
he i s charged, and t h e punishment t h e r e o f f i x e d by
law, s h a l l be r e c i t e d i n , and become a p a r t of t h e
common law r e c o r d i n t h e c a s e * * *."
Montana does n o t have a s i m i l a r r u l e t o t h e I l l i n o i s Rule
27A n o r a s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, Chap. 38, par.
732. T h e i r combined e f f e c t i s d i f f e r e n t than ~ o n t a n a ' ss e c t i o n
95-1902, R,.C.M. 1947. Therefore Washington i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e
here.
I n h i s b r i e f , defendant c a l l s t o t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n :
"It i s important t o n o t e a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t two a f f i d a v i t s
appear i n t h e Court f i l e , p r e s e n t l y b e f o r e t h e Supreme
Court. wherein P e t i t i o n e r h a s submitted a motion t o v a c a t e
h i s skntence and a motion t o withdraw h i s p l e a of
I
nuiltv'. U n t i l t h e s e a f f i d a v i t s a r e opposed by c o u n t e r
a z f i d a b i t s , e v e r y t h i n g must b e assumed as t r u e &hich i s
contained t h e r e i n . S t a t e v. M c A l l i s t e r , s u p r a , a t 353. I1
(Emphasis added)
A review of t h e s e two pro s e motions demonstrates t h e y a r e
n o t a f f i d a v i t s and a r e n o t v e r i f i e d o r sworn t o i n any r e s p e c t .
A review of t h e e n t i r e c o u r t f i l e d i s c l o s e s d e f e n d a n t ' s e a r l i e r
pro s e pleadings were sworn t o b e f o r e deputy s h e r i f f Richard
W. Donovan, a n o t a r y p u b l i c , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o
p r e s e n t a f f i d a v i t s was a v a i l a b l e t o persons confined i n t h e Cascade
county j a i l . I n any c a s e S t a t e v. M c A l l i s t e r , 96 Mont, 348,
353, 30 P.2d 821 (1934), no l o n g e r c o n t r o l s on t h a t p o i n t i n
t h o s e a b s o l u t e terms s i n c e t h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n S t a t e v.
Pelke, 143 Mont. 262, 268, 389 P.2d 164, which s t a t e d :
"* * * we do n o t t r e a t S t a t e v. M c A l l i s t e r , s u p r a ,
as setting forth the inflexible rule * * *. Ulti-
mately much l a t i t u d e must be given t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n
of t h e t r i a l judge, who has a f i r s t hand acquaintance
w i t h t h e circumstances of t h e c a s e * * *."
Pelke reached t h e fundamental purpose of t h e s e r u l e s :
"* * * a p l e a of g u i l t y need be deemed i n v o l u n t a r y
only when i t appears t h a t t h e defendant was l a b o r i n g
under such a s t r o n g inducement, fundamental mistake;
o r s e r i o u s mental c o n d i t i o n , t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
e x i s t s he may have pleaded g u i l t y t o a crime of which
he i s innocent." (Emphasis added).
Defendant c i t e s Boykin v. A.labama, 395 U. S. 238, 239,
89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L ed 2d 274, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a g u i l t y
p l e a cannot be presumed t o b e v o l u n t a r y where:
II
So f a r a s t h e r e c o r d shows, t h e [ t r i a l ] judge
asked no q u e s t i o n s of [defendant] concerning h i s
p l e a , and [defendant] d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e c o u r t . lI
Defendant a l l e g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t must employ t h e utmost
s o l i c i t u d e of which c o u r t s a r e capable i n canvassing t h e matter
w i t h t h e accused t o make s u r e he has f u l l understanding of what
t h e p l e a connotes and of i t s consequences.
I n Boykin t h e c o u r t s e t down t h r e e a r e a s of i n q u i r y (1)
self-incrimination, (2) r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , and (3) r i g h t t o
confront accusers. Defendant i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e a r g u e s t h a t
t h e s e procedural s t e p s announced i n Boykin a r e mandatory i n a l l -
c a s e s under any c o n d i t i o n s .
I n a c a s e t r i e d i n t h e Cascade County d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S t a t e
v. Wilkins, a murder c a s e , a p l e a change was involved d u r i n g t r i a l .
Wilkins f i l e d a w r i t of habeas corpus i n t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , Great F a l l s D i v i s i o n , C i v i l No. 3167, 30 St.Rep. 1207,
and an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e q u e s t i o n : Is a
g u i l t y plea v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y made under Boykin
v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S . C t . 1709, 23 Ta ed 2d 274 (1969)
and c a s e s f o l l o w i n g , i f t h e defendant a t t h e time o f p l e a d i n g
g u i l t y i s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y advised by t h e S t a t e c o u r t judge that
by p l e a d i n g g u i l t y he w i l l waive h i s p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s t s e l f -
i n c r i m i n a t i o n , h i s r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , and h i s r i g h t t o
confront h i s accusers?
The f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n denying t h e p e t i t i o n on
December 20, 1973, determined t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r language i n
Boykin was merely a d v i s o r y and concluded t h a t a p l e a could be
v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y made without s p e c i f i c a r t i c u l a t i o n
of t h e t h r e e Boykin r i g h t s , a s long a s t h e c o u r t p a s s i n g on t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t , be a b l e t o f i n d from t h e whole r e c o r d
b e f o r e i t , without a i d of presumptions, t h a t a p l e a of g u i l t y
was v o l u n t a r i l y made.
9 1 November 6 , 1974, t h e Ninth C i r c u i t Court of Appeals,
x
by o p i n i o n , Wilkins v. Erickson, 505 F.2d 761, 763, a f f i r m e d t h e
federal d i s t r i c t court. A f t e r s e t t i n g o u t t h e l e g a l q u e s t i o n con-
c e r n i n g t h e t h r e e a r e a s of i n q u i r y i n Boykin, t h e Court observed:
"Wilkins r e l i e s on t h e f o l l o w i n g language from
Boykin :
11 1
W cannot presume a waiver of t h e s e
e
t h r e e i m o r t a n t f e d e r a l r i g h t s from a s i l e n t
record. I R
Then t h e c o u r t pointed out t h a t Boykin involved an arraignment
on f i v e counts of robbery and t h e c o u r t asked no q u e s t i o n s ,
and t h e defendant d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e c o u r t - - - t h e record w a s
silent. The c o u r t went on t o s a y :
II
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n , however, i s
supported by Supreme Court d e c i s i o n s subsequent t o
Boykin and s e v e r a l c i r c u i t s . The r i g i d i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n of Boykin urged by Wilkins has n o t been adopted
by t h e Supreme Court i n subsequent d e c i s i o n s on volun
t a r i n e s s of g u i l t y p l e a s . I n Brady v. United S t a t e s ,
U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747, (1970), t h e
Court c i t i n g Boykin, upheld a g u i l t y p l e a a s v o l u n t a r
and i n t e l l i g e n t even though defendant had n o t been
s~ecificallv advised of t h e t h r e e r i g h t s d i s c u s s e d i n
~ b y k i n . s he Brady Court c l a r i f i e d kin by s t a t i n g ,
' [ t l h e new element added i n Boykin was t h e requirement
t h a t t h e r e c o r d must a f f i r m a t i v e l y d i s c l o s e t h a t a
defendant who pleaded g u i l t y e n t e r e d h i s plea under-
s t a n d i n g l y and v o l u n t a r i l y . ' 3 9 7 U.S. a t 747-748 fn.4.
90 S.Ct. a t 1468. I n North C a r o l i n a v. A l f o r d , 400
U.S. 25,31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 1 6 , 4 (1970),
t h e Court s t a t e d t h a t i n determining t h e v a l i d i t y of
g u i l t y p l e a s t h e I s t a n d a r d was and remains whether t h e
plea r e p r e s e n t s a v o l u n t a r y and i n t e l l i g e n t c h o i c e amon
t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s of a c t i o n open t o t h e defendant
S p e c i f i c a r t i c u l a t i o n of t h e Boykin r i g h t s i s n o t t h e
s i n e qua non of a v a l i d g u i l t y p l e a .
"The Ninth C i r c u i t has a p p a r e n t l y n o t passed on t h e
q u e s t i o n . Accordingly, we hold t h a t Boykin does n o t
r e q u i r e s p e c i f i c a r t i c u l a t i o n of t h e above mentioned
t h r e e r i g h t s i n a s t a t e proceeding. Brady v. United
S t a t e s 397 U.S. a t 747-748 * JC JX and c a s e s supra."
(Emphasis added).
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s from
arraignment on t h e drug charge i n t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e peace c o u r t ,
arraignment i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on t h e m u l t i p l e c h a r g e s , t h e
p a r t i c i p a t i o n pro s e by defendant throughout t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d ,
and t h e d i s c h a r g e of c o u n s e l each time i t appeared t h e c a s e would
b e brought on f o r t r i a l , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e r e p e a t e d r e f e r e n c e s
t o "plea bargaining" each time, would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e g u i l t y
p l e a was e n t e r e d w i t h f u l l understanding of t h e c h a r g e , v o l u n t a r i l y
made and w i t h f u l l a p p r e c i a t i o n of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s
and p o s s i b l e p e n a l t y , w i t h o u t i n d u l g i n g i n presumptions. Cer-
t a i n l y a more i n depth examination by t h e c o u r t i s d e s i r a b l e
and mandatory i n c a s e s where t h e r e c o r d r e q u i r e s i t . Each c a s e
must b e examined on i t s own r e c o r d and i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a r t i c u l a t e a t t h e time
of t h e p l e a change on t h e m a t t e r s c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 95-1902(b),
R.C.M. 1947, does n o t amount t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r .
Defendant's second i s s u e on review concerns t h e f a i l u r e
of t h e t r i a l judge t o permit defendant t o withdraw h i s p l e a s of
g u i l t y on t h e day s e t f o r s e n t e n c e , A p r i l 3 , 1974, based on pro
h e r e t o f o r e s e t f o r t h Those motions
s e motions f i l e d t h a t daylamount t o a v i t r i o l i c a t t a c k on h i s
p a i d c o u n s e l , t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y , and t h e t r i a l judge
and a pleading of proof of h i s innocence a s t h e r e s u l t of a
polygraph examination, administered by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s ; and
proclaiming he had been promised a s i x month county j a i l term i n
exchange f o r a p l e a of g u i l t y t o possession of drugs.
Defendant a t t h i s p o i n t had s u f f e r e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e
e r o s i o n of h i s c r e d i b i l i t y . The t r i a l judge was i n possession of
t h e presentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n t a i n i n g t h e r e s u l t s of t h e
polygraph examination, which, j u s t t o demonstrate l a c k of c r e d i -
b i l i t y , i s r e p o r t e d h e r e t o c o n t a i n t h e opinion o f t h e o p e r a t o r
t h a t defendant d i d g i v e marijuana t o t h e v i c t i m , d i d f o r c e t h e
v i c t i m t o remove c l o t h e s and d i d f o r c e v i c t i m t o have sex.
A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e paid counsel and t h e deputy county a t t o r n e y ,
b o t h competent and c r e d i b l e o f f i c e r s of t h e c o u r t , denied t h e s e
a l l e g a t i o n s i n open c o u r t a s they p e r t a i n e d t o them i n d i v i d u a l l y
and t o t h e circumstances g e n e r a l l y a s s e r t e d by defendant.
The r e c o r d does i n d i c a t e t h e r e were t h r e e s e p a r a t e t i m e s
t h e s t a t e was r e a d y f o r t r i a l and each time new c o u n s e l was ob-
t a i n e d and defendant e n t e r e d i n t o p l e a b a r g a i n i n g , a l l a t t h e
r e q u e s t of defendant. The t r i a l judge admits he was a g r e e a b l e
t o a l i g h t e r s e n t e n c e t o a v o i d exposing t h e j u v e n i l e boy t o t h e
p u b l i c view on t h e t r i a l of t h e s e x crime. N one b u t defendant
o
e v e r mentioned a r e d u c t i o n i n s e n t e n c e t o s i x months i n t h e county
jail. The maximum exposure on c o n v i c t i o n of t h e two crimes
charged w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n f o r i n c r e a s e d punishment c o u l d be two
l i f e sentences. A t s e n t e n c i n g t h e judge asked defendant i f he would
l i k e t o t e s t i f y i n h i s own b e h a l f and r e c e i v e d t h i s r e s p o n s e :
"MR. GRIFFIN: Well, your honor, I h a v e n ' t d i s -
cussed any s i t u t a t i o n of s e n t e n c i n g w i t h m f a m i l y ,
y
because t h e y a r e under t h e i m p r e s s i o n , j u s t l i k e me,
t h a t I would g e t a b r e a k i n a w h i t e man s c o u r t -----
"THE COURT: You have had l o t s of b r e a k s i n t h i s case-----
"MR. GRIFFIN: But I am n o t going t o g e t no b r e a k i n a
w h i t e man's c o u r t , I can s e e t h a t , anyway, because I am
an I n d i a n , and you a r e wrong, and I was wrong i n m i m - y
p r e s s i o n , and t h a t ' s a l l I can s a y about t h e whole t h i n g .
"THE COURT: You d o n ' t wish t o p r e s e n t any f u r t h e r
testimony w i t h r e g a r d t o m i t i g a t i o n o f s e n t e n c e ?
"MR. GRIFFIN: There i s n ' t a n y t h i n g e l s e t h a t would
h e l p , because everybody e l s e has t h e i r mind made up
a g a i n s t me. 11
The t r i a l judge imposed a t e n y e a r s e n t e n c e . The s t a t e
d i s m i s s e d a l l remaining c h a r g e s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t . The e n t i r e
argument based on t h e r e c o r d must be t h e c o n n o t a t i o n of " l i g h t
sentence". The t r i a l judge has complete d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r ,
s e c t i o n 95-2206, R.C.M. 1947, and must have f e l t t h a t " l i g h t " i s
viewed i n r e l a t i o n t o " p o s s i b l e l ' . Viewed i n t h i s c o n t e x t we do
n o t f i n d an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . A s this Court s t a t e d i n S t a t e
v. Nance, 120 Mont. 152, 166, 184 P.2d 554:
11
I t w i l l n o t lend i t s a s s i s t a n c e t o an accused
criminal i n escaping the obligations of h i s
agreement a f t e r a c c e p t i n g t h e b e n e f i t s t h e r e o f . "
See a l s o : S t a t e v. S c a l i s e , 131 Monte 238, 309 P.2d 1010.
The judgment of the district coufze is affirmed.
/ Justice f
We Concur:
---.&--------d,------------------
- "2
Chief Justice
L' Justices.