No. 13480
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
DONALD E . RYAN,
Petitioner and Appellant,
VS.
ROGER CRIST, WARDEN,
Respondent and Appellee.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
District, Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Donald E. Ryan, Pro Se, Deer Lodge, Montana
For Respondent:
Michael Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings,
Montana
Argument waived and submitted on briefs.
Submitted: January 14, 1977
Decided : ~ py-9
1977
M - 9 1977
Y
-9
c-
Filed:
, Clerk
tv~r. ' t s c i c d 3 d ~ l i e l2 . sned 3eLiveied :he d p i l i i o ~ l> f irhe Court.
3eielldant a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
Yelluwscone County, r e f u s i n g t o v a c a t e a 10 y e a r s e n t e n c e imposed
r o r t h r e e counts of grand l a r c e n y . He contends t h a t i n imposing
t h i s s e n t e n c e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t improperly c o n s i d e r e d h i s p r i o r
Celony r e c o r d because defendant d i d n o t have c o u n s e l when t h e
obtained t h e convictions. The s t a t e does n o t d i s p u t e t h a t he
d i d n o t have counsel a t t h e time.
The f a c t s l e a d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c l a i m a r e : On J u l y 27,
L9/3, J e f e n d a n t pleaded g u i l t y t o t h r e e c o u n t s of grand l a r c e n y
did t h e J i s t r i c t c o u r t d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e f o r one y e a r .
(The p r e - s e n t e n c e r e p o r t showed defendant d i d have a p r i o r f e l o n y
r e c o r d , a l t h o u g h t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n defendant was t h e n w i t h o u t
counsel). Almost a y e a r l a t e r , on J u l y 8 , 1974, t h e Yellowstone
Jounty a t t o r n e y f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r r e v o c a t i o n of t h e d e f e r r e d
, = ~ i t e n c ea l l e g i n g defendant committed t h e crime of l a r c e n y w h i l e
SJLI probation. Defendant was r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g
by a public defender. A f t e r h e a r i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t revoked
the d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e and imposed a 10 y e a r p r i s o n s e n t e n c e . On
a p p e a l t h i s Court a f f i r m e d on an i s s u e n o t r e l a t e d t o t h i s p r e s e n t
appeal. S t a t e v. Ryan, 166 Mont. 41-9, 533 P.2d 1076.
While s e r v i n g h i s time i n p r i s o n , defendant f i l e d a p r o s e
proceeding w i t h t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t s e e k i n g t o v a c a t e h i s 10 y e a r
sentence. He claimed he was e n t i t l e d t o be r e s e n t e n c e d because t h e
d i s r r i c t c o u r t improperly c o n s i d e r e d h i s f e l o n y r e c o r d a c q u i r e d
b e f o r e he pleaded g u i l t y t o t h e t h r e e c o u n t s of grand l a r c e n y .
Defendant claimed t h i s t o be i l l e g a l , because he d i d n o t have c o u n s e l
r e p r e s e n t i n g him.
Upon r e c e i v i n g t h i s c l a i m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t appointed t h e
p u b l i c d e i e n d e r t o r e p ~ r s e n cilei-e~rclant ( t h e same p u b l i c d e f e n d e r
who had r e p r e s e n t e d defendant a t t h e p r o b a t i o n r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g
cind on t h e p r e v i o u s a p p e a l ) . Defendant was n o t r e t u r n e d from
prison t o p a r t i c i p a t e a t the hearing.
Although t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t h o l d an e v i d e n t i a r y
hearing, it i s c l e a r the s t a t e did not dispute t h a t defendant's
previous f e l o n y r e c o r d was c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n f i r m because he d i d
rlot have c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t i n g him. Accordingly, under t h o s e c i r -
cumstances t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t could n o t c o n s i d e r t h o s e p r e v i o u s
t e l o n i e s a s a b a s i s f o r s e n t e n c i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t , a f t e r he had
pleaded g u i l t y t o t h e l a t e r f e l o n i e s . United S t a t e s v . Tucker,
404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L ed 2d 592. A s a basis for
keeping t h e s e n t e n c e a t 10 y e a r s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t simply concluded
t h e s e n t e n c e would have been t h e same even i f he had n o t c o n s i d e r e d
defendant's p r i o r felony record. W have no way of knowing t h e
e
p r o c e s s e s used by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judge i n i n i t i a l l y imposing
Lhe 10 y e a r s e n t e n c e .
Defendant, f i l i n g h i s b r i e f s p r o s e , r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s
b u t s i n c e we r e v e r s e and remand f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g we need o n l y
c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e of t h e p r e v i o u s f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s o b t a i n e d
w h i l e defendant was n o t r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l .
I t i s c l e a r t h a t a s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t cannot r e l y upon a
previuas criminal record i n sentencing i f t h a t record contains
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y infirm convictions. United S t a t e s v. Tucker, s u p r a .
I t i s undisputed h e r e t h a t defendant was n o t r e p r e s e n t e d by
c o u n s e l when he was convicted of t h e p r e v i o u s f e l o n i e s . However,
t h e s t a t e contends t h e 10 y e a r s e n t e n c e imposed when h i s f e l o n y
r e c o r d was exposed t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge was cured when t h e
d i s t r i c t judge s t a t e d t h e s e n t e n c e would have been t h e same, even
i-il ' ~ dhdJ 11i)t JL
'~I~U\N~I fzhe p ~ e v i c ) u s f e l u ~ 1 ~ n v i c t i o n s .
co That
i s n o t enough. There i s n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h a t
t ~ o s i t i o n ,n o r do we t h i n k i t i s t h e proper way of h a n d l i n g t h e
.ituation.
Apparently s e v e r a l f e d e r a l c o u r t s have taken t h e p o s i t i o n
s i n i i l a r t o t h a t urged by t h e s t a t e . Lipscomb v. C l a r k , 468 F.2d
1.321 ( 5 t h C i r . ) ; Russo v. United S t a t e s , 470 F.2d 1357 ( 5 t h C i r . ) ;
Y i l s e y v . United S t a t e s , 496 F.2d 619 (2d C i z ) ; United S t a t e s v.
Yermann, 524 F.2d 1103 (2d C i r . ) . The t h e o r y i s t h a t t h e p r o c e s s
been
'1.~~ p u r i f i e d by t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e
3 e ~ i t e n c ehe o r i g i n a l l y handed down would s t i l l be t h e same i f
he had n o t had improper i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e him. A defendant i s
~ i ~ e n t i t l e d t o be r e s e n t e n c e d i f t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t concludes
l y
Lhe improper i n f o r m a t i o n might have a f f e c t e d t h e s e n t e n c e . We
lo .lot adopt t h i s approach.
W h o l d t h a t where i t i s shown improper m a t t e r s have been
e
brought before the sentencing court f o r i t s consideration i n
s e ~ i t e n c i n g , and where t h o s e m a t t e r s a r e n o t d i s c l o s e d and e x p l a i n e d
~t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , a defendant h a s a r i g h t t o be r e s e n t e n c e d .
T h i s i s t h e b e s t way of p r e s e r v i n g t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e s e n t e n c i n g
process.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h i s c a s e
i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g .
-.
-
Chief J u s t i c e