No. 12845
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1975
STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
D N L E. RYAN,
O AD
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court 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 ,
Honorable R o b e r t Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellant :
Michael Whalen a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondent :
Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
Thomas A. Budewitz a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
Helena, Montana
Harold F. Hanser, County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: March 7, 1975
Decided :
ARR - 9 1E
9
Filed: -9 !$n
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
O J u l y 27, 1973, Donald E. Ryan pleaded g u i l t y t o t h r e e
n
counts of grand l a r c e n y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County.
The c o u r t d e f e r r e d imposition of s e n t e n c e f o r one y e a r , p l a c i n g
defendant on p r o b a t i o n under t h e s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e S t a t e Board
of Pardons. One of t h e terms of t h e p r o b a t i o n , accepted by de-
fendant a s a c o n d i t i o n of t h e sentence d e f e r r a l , was a requirement
that:
"3. The defendant s h a l l conduct himself i n a law
a b i d i n g manner and s h a l l n o t v i o l a t e any law of t h e
United S t a t e s o r o f t h e S t a t e of Montana o r t h e
ordinance of any c i t y o r town d u r i n g s a i d term * * *. 'I
O J u l y 8 , 1974, p e t i t i o n was f i l e d f o r r e v o c a t i o n of t h e
n
d e f e r r a l o r d e r ; t h e grounds f o r r e v o c a t i o n were t h a t defendant
a l l e g e d l y s t o l e a t y p e w r i t e r from a bus t e r m i n a l i n B i l l i n g s . On
t h e same day, an Information was f i l e d which charged defendant w i t h
t h e f t (a f e l o n y ) , a l l e g i n g t h e same a c t contained i n t h e p e t i t i o n
f o r revocation. Following arraignment and d e f e n d a n t ' s plea of
n o t g u i l t y , t r i a l was s e t f o r September 16, 1974.
A h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v o c a t i o n was s e t f o r J u l y 12,
1974. On t h a t d a t e , defendant moved f o r a continuance u n t i l a f t e r
t h e t r i a l on t h e c r i m i n a l charge o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r d i s -
m i s s a l of t h e c r i m i n a l charge w i t h p r e j u d i c e . The grounds f o r t h e
motion were s t a t e d a s :
"* ** That t h e i d e n t i c a l f a c t s w i t h which he i s
charged i n t h e P e t i t i o n f o r Revocation a r e a l l e g e d
i n t h e Information c h a r g i n g him w i t h t h e crime f o r
which he i s y e t t o s t a n d t r i a l and h i s g u i l t o r inno-
cence h a s n o t y e t been determined and t o r e q u i r e him t o
go t o h e a r i n g a t t h i s time upon t h e P e t i t i o n f o r Revocation
would e f f e c t i v e l y d e p r i v e him o f h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s
t o remain s i l e n t a s t o t h e f a c t s i n t h e f e l o n y c a s e pending
a g a i n s t him i n Cause No. 9335, and i n e f f e c t would amount
t o s u b j e c t i n g him t o double jeopardy i f he were r e q u i r e d t o
t e s t i f y a s t o t h e f a c t s a t t h i s time and then subsequently
appear i n a t r i a l b e f o r e a j u r y i n Cause No. 9335. I n a d d i -
t i o n t o t h a t i t would put t h e Court i n a p o s i t i o n whereby
he could be c o n v i c t e d on t h e p r e s e n t f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n with-
o u t t h e b e n e f i t of a j u r y t r i a l , and a t a time when a c r i m i n a l
charge has i n f a c t been f i l e d upon t h e same s e t of f a c t s . "
The motion was denied and t h e h e a r i n g proceeded w i t h t h e
s t a r e ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n of w i t n e s s e s t o t h e a l l e g e d crime. These
w i t n e s s e s were cross-examined by defense c o u n s e l , b u t defendant
d i d n o t t a k e t h e s t a n d i n h i s own d e f e n s e n o r p r e s e n t any evidence.
Defendant was found i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s
p r o b a t i o n and was subsequently sentenced t o terms of t e n y e a r s on
each of t h e t h r e e p r i o r counts. The s e n t e n c e s were t o b e served
concurrently. Following r e v o c a t i o n and s e n t e n c i n g , t h e new c r i m i n a l
charge was dismissed on t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s motion.
~ e f e n d a n t ' sa p p e a l from t h e judgment r a i s e s a s i n g l e i s s u e :
Should t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g have been continued u n t i l a f t e r
t r i a l of t h e c r i m i n a l charge o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , should t h e
c r i m i n a l charge have been dismissed w i t h p r e j u d i c e ?
Defendant contends he was denied due process by being f o r c e d
t o e l e c t between e i t h e r e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t
( r i s k i n g p o s s i b l e r e v o c a t i o n of h i s d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e ) o r waiving
t h a t r i g h t ( r i s k i n g p o s s i b l e s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e c r i m i n a l
c h a r g e , y e t t o be t r i e d ) . He a r g u e s t h e s t a t e ' s only motive f o r
compelling t h i s e l e c t i o n by holding t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g f i r s t ,
was t o c o e r c e him i n t o t a k i n g t h e s t a n d . I f he had done s o , he
would have been a v a i l a b l e f o r cross-examination which could be used
by t h e s t a t e a s a d i s c o v e r y technique,
Although t h i s argument i s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time b e f o r e
t h i s Court, o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have been p r e s e n t e d w i t h s i m i l a r
issues. For r e c e n t examples s e e : People v. C a r r , (Colo.1974),
524 P.2d 301; Gonsalves v. Howard, (R.I.1974), 324 A.2d 338; People
v. Cruz, 14 Ill.App.3d 513, 302 N.E.2d 702. The most complete d i s -
c u s s i o n on t h e s e i s s u e s can be found i n t h e s e t h r e e r e l a t e d opinions:
F l i n t v. Howard, 110 R.I.223, 291 A.2d 625, c e r t , d e n . 409 U.S. 1078,
93 S e c t . 694, 34 L ed 2d 667; F l i n t v. Mullen, 372 F.Supp. 213
(D.R.I. 1974), r e v e r s e d i n F l i n t v , Mullen, 499 F.2d 100 ( 1 s t C i r .
1974). These c a s e s hold t h a t due process i s n o t v i o l a t e d by h o l d i n g
a r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g p r i o r t o t r i a l o f a c r i m i n a l charged based
on t h e same f a c t s a l l e g e d a s grounds f o r t h e r e v o c a t i o n .
I n McGautha v. C a l i f o r n i a , 402 U.S. 183, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 28
L ed 2d 711, 729, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court decided a q u e s t i o n
s i m i l a r t o the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenge r a i s e d i n t h e i n s t a n t case.
There defendant was t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y which decided b o t h t h e ques-
t i o n of g u i l t o r innocence, a s w e l l a s t h e q u e s t i o n of s e n t e n c e ,
i f guilty. Defendant a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f due p r o c e s s a r i s i n g
from t h e n e c e s s i t y of c h o o s i n g w h e t h e r t o remain s i l e n t ( r i s k i n g a
h a r s h e r s e n t e n c e ) o r waiving t h a t r i g h t ( r i s k i n g p o s s i b l e s e l f -
incrimination). Recognizing defendant's predicament, t h e Court
said:
"The c r i m i n a l p r o c e s s , l i k e t h e rest of t h e
l e g a l system, i s r e p l e t e w i t h s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g
' t h e making of d i f f i c u l t judgments' a s t o which c o u r s e
t o follow. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S., a t 769,
25 L Ed 2d a t 772. Although a defendant may have a
r i g h t , even o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l dimensions, t o f o l l o w
whichever c o u r s e he chooses, t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n does n o t
by t h a t token always f o r b i d r e q u i r i n g him t o choose."
Under t h e f a c t s of McGautha no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n was found.
Here, a s i n McGautha, defendant was p r e s e n t e d w i t h a s t r a t e g i c
c h o i c e - - s i l e n c e , which he c l a i m s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e r e v o c a t i o n of
h i s d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e , o r speaking o u t a t t h e r i s k of p o s s i b l e
s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e s u b s t a n t i v e c r i m i n a l charge. The c h o i c e
of whether o r n o t t o waive h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t was one which
defendant n e c e s s a r i l y would have t o make, sooner o r l a t e r . His
p o s i t i o n a t t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g and a t t h e t r i a l would be sub-
s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r , m a i n t a i n i n g h i s innocence of t h e a l l e g e d t h e f t
of t h e t y p e w r i t e r . The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y of r e q u i r i n g e a r l i e r
d i s c l o s u r e of c e r t a i n d e f e n s e s was upheld by t h e United S t a t e s
Supreme Court i n Williams v. F l o r i d a , 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893,
26 L ed 2d 446. It has a l s o been upheld by t h i s Court. S t a t e ex
r e l . Sikora v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 241, 462 P.2d 897. We
hold t h a t t h e e a r l i e r c h o i c e a s t o e x e r c i s e of t h e r i g h t t o remain
s i l e n t , under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , i s n o t repugnant t o e i t h e r
United S t a t e s o r Montana c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s .
The t h r u s t of t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d i s p l a i n . A defendant,
i n t h e c o u r s e of d e f e n s e , must n e c e s s a r i l y make a number of hard
d e c i s i o n s many of which b e a r on t h e e x e r c i s e o r waiver of c o n s t i -
tutional rights. Often, as h e r e , t h e c h o i c e i s a d i f f i c u l t one.
However, i t does n o t f o l l o w t h a t such c h o i c e s cannot be c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l l y required.
I n f i n d i n g no v i o l a t i o n o f due p r o c e s s requirements we have
n o t d i s c u s s e d t h e j u r y t r i a l and double jeopardy i s s u e s r a i s e d
by defendant i n h i s motion f o r continuance i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
O appeal defend an^ c i t e d no a u t h o r i t y i n support of t h e s e c h a l l e n g e s ,
n
and t r e a t m e n t of t h e s e i s s u e s i n t h e b r i e f s and o r a l argument was
cursory. W e note t h a t a revocation hearing i s j u s t that--- a
hearing, n o t a t r i a l . I t s f u n c t i o n i s t o determine whether o r n o t
t h e terms of probation have been v i o l a t e d . T r i a l by j u r y on t h e
c r i m i n a l charge i s s t i l l a s s u r e d . W f i n d no m e n t i n d e f e n d a n t ' s
e
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenges.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed.
i
!
..................................
. . I
Justice
// Chief J u s t i c e
/' justices. /
/{