No. 14937
I N THE SUPREPIIE COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1979
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
-vs-
GARY EUGENE R A D I ,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
H o n o r a b l e W. W. L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
McKinley A n d e r s o n , Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent:
H o n o r a b l e 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
Submitted on B r i e f s : O c t o b e r 1 4 , 1979
Decided: DEC28 1
m
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f
t h e Court.
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l r e s u l t i n g from a r e s e n t e n c i n g of
a p p e l l a n t t o a sentence of 50 years.
Appellant w a s convicted i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e
S i x 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 of Sweet
G r a s s , of t h e c r i m e o f b u r g l a r y . The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r -
d i c t a t t h e same t i m e which a c q u i t t e d a p p e l l a n t of t h e
charge of t h e f t .
Appellant w a s sentenced a s a p e r s i s t e n t offender t o a
t e r m of 50 y e a r s . Appeal w a s t a k e n t o t h i s C o u r t . This
C o u r t , i n S t a t e v . Radi ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 578 P. 2d
1169, 35 St.Rep. 489, a f f i r m e d t h e i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l i n
f a v o r o f t h e S t a t e , b u t h e l d t h a t s i n c e t h e s e n t e n c e pro-
nounced w a s done w i t h o u t a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , r e -
turned t h e c a s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e purpose of
r e s e n t e n c i n g a p p e l l a n t a f t e r a p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t had been
filed.
Two i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on t h e p r e s e n t a p p e a l :
1. W a s t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t p r e p a r e d by t h e Board of
P a r d o n s and P a r o l e s p r e j u d i c i a l t o a p p e l l a n t i n t h i s c a s e ?
2. Is t h e r e a n i n c o n s i s t e n c y between t h e v e r d i c t
r e t u r n e d by t h e j u r y o f g u i l t y of Count I , t h e c o u n t of
b u r g l a r y , and of n o t g u i l t y o f Count 11, t h e f t ?
The f i r s t i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d t o whether t h e p r e s e n t e n c e
r e p o r t p r e p a r e d by t h e Board o f Pardons and P a r o l e s w a s
prejudicial t o appellant. S e c t i o n 46-18-112, MCA, provides
f o r a sentencing r e p o r t a s follows:
"Whenever a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d , t h e pro-
b a t i o n o f f i c e r s h a l l promptly i n q u i r e i n t o t h e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , c i r c u m s t a n c e s , n e e d s , and po-
t e n t i a l i t i e s of t h e defendant; h i s criminal
r e c o r d and s o c i a l h i s t o r y ; t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of
t h e o f f e n s e ; t h e t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s been i n
d e t e n t i o n ; and t h e harm t o t h e v i c t i m , h i s i m -
m e d i a t e f a m i l y , and t h e community. A l l l o c a l
and s t a t e m e n t a l and c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
c o u r t s , and p o l i c e a g e n c i e s s h a l l f u r n i s h t h e
p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r , on r e q u e s t , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
c r i m i n a l r e c o r d and o t h e r r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n .
The i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a l l i n c l u d e a p h y s i c a l and
m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t when i t i s
d e s i r a b l e i n t h e o p i n i o n of t h e c o u r t . "
B e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g t o a n a l y z e e a c h of t h e p r o v i s i o n s i n
t h e r e p o r t of t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h a t i s a l l e g e d
t o be i n e r r o r , w e w i l l a d d r e s s some g e n e r a l comments re-
g a r d i n g such r e p o r t s i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e s s .
This Court has held t h a t a presentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n
r e p o r t " i s a v i t a l t o o l o f t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n a r r i v i n g a t
what i t c o n s i d e r s a p r o p e r s e n t e n c e . " S t a t e v. Radi, s u p r a ,
578 P.2d a t 1182, 35 St.Rep. a t 504. The p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n
o f t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t o a s s i s t t h e judge i n
making h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s t o t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a f t e r con-
viction. P e o p l e v . Edwards ( 1 9 7 6 ) r 1 8 Cal.3d 796, 135
Cal.Rptr. 411, 557 P.2d 995. The p r o b a t i o n r e p o r t i s g e n e r -
a l l y a p r o p e r s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n upon which j u d i c i a l
d i s c r e t i o n c a n be e x e r c i s e d when a d e f e n d a n t i s b r o u g h t
before the c o u r t f o r sentencing. P e o p l e v . Chi KO Wong
(1976) 18 Cal.3d 698, 135 C a l . R p t r . 392, 557 P.2d 976. The
s e n t e n c i n g judge c a n n o t be d e n i e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i n
i n f o r m a t i o n by imposing s t r i c t r e q u i r e m e n t s o r r e s t r i c t i n g
t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o t h e r u l e s of e v i d e n c e a p p l i c a b l e a t a
trial. Thus, h e a r s a y and o t h e r matters a r e a c c e p t a b l e i n a
presentence report. W i l l i a m s v . New York ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 337 U.S.
241, 247, 69 S . C t . 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337.
Montana h a s l o n g a l l o w e d t h e u s e of r e p o r t s of p r e -
sentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n s f o r sentencing purposes. See S t a t e
v. K a r a t h a n o s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 158 Mont. 461, 493 P.2d 326; S t a t e v .
Harris ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 425, 498 P.2d 1222.
I t i s a g e n e r a l r u l e t h r o u g h o u t t h i s c o u n t r y t h a t when
matters c o n t a i n e d i n a r e p o r t a r e c o n t e s t e d by t h e d e f e n -
d a n t , t h e defendant has, i n e f f e c t , an a f f i r m a t i v e duty t o
p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e showing t h e i n a c c u r a c i e s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e
report. Crowder v. S t a t e (Okla. 1 9 7 4 ) , 518 P.2d 890; P e o p l e
v . Carter ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 186 Colo. 391, 527 P.2d 875. A recent
Supreme C o u r t c a s e from t h e S t a t e o f A l a s k a , Nukapigak v .
S t a t e ( A l a s k a 1 9 7 8 ) , 576 P.2d 982, 983, h e l d t h a t f a i l u r e on
t h e p a r t of t h e d e f e n d a n t t o c h a l l e n g e t h e a c c u r a c i e s o f
s t a t e m e n t s o r t o o f f e r c o n t r a r y e v i d e n c e a t t h e t i m e of
sentencing i s f a t a l . "That f a c t alone i s s u f f i c i e n t t o
support our decision t o affirm h i s sentences." Nukapigak,
576 P.2d a t 983.
Nukapigak r e l i e d upon a C a l i f o r n i a d e c i s i o n , P e o p l e v.
Chi KO Wong, s u p r a , and found t h a t i t i s a d e f e n d a n t ' s
o b l i g a t i o n t o comply w i t h " p r o c e d u r e s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e
claimed u n r e l i a b i l i t y of m a t e r i a l s p r o p e r l y submitted f o r
t h e s e n t e n c i n g p u r p o s e s ; a mere c l a i m of i n v a l i d i t y i s
insufficient." Nukapigak, 576 P.2d a t 984. A number of
c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t , i f a d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t p r e s e n t
evidence o r witnesses t o c o n t r a d i c t o r otherwise r e b u t
materials i n a p r o b a t i o n r e p o r t , h e i s f o r e c l o s e d from
r a i s i n g such i s s u e s on a p p e a l . See Crowder, s u p r a ; C a r t e r ,
supra.
This s t a t e t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t adopted t h e g e n e r a l r u l e
i n I n r e P e t i t i o n o f J e r a l d M. Amor ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 143 Mont. 479,
389 P.2d 180, where t h e d e f e n d a n t , on a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t ,
a l l e g e d t h a t he w a s n o t g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f u t e
evidence contained i n t h e presentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t .
T h i s C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o h e a r t h a t argument r e a s o n i n g t h a t
s i n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t was r e p r e s e n t e d by competent c o u n s e l a t
s e n t e n c i n g , t h e d e f e n d a n t had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f u t e o r
c o n t r a d i c t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e r e p o r t b u t c h o s e n o t t o do
SO.
T h i s c a s e i s much l i k e Amor. Here, a p p e l l a n t had t h e
opportunity t o r e f u t e o r c o n t r a d i c t t h e information t h a t w a s
contained i n the report. Both a p p e l l a n t and h i s c o u n s e l
w e r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h a copy of t h e r e p o r t p r i o r t o t h e h e a r -
ing. A p p e l l a n t c h o s e t o o f f e r no w i t n e s s e s t o r e b u t o r
c o n t r a d i c t any i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e r e p o r t . I n f a c t , appel-
l a n t n e i t h e r t e s t i f i e d n o r o f f e r e d w i t n e s s e s on h i s b e h a l f .
While c o u n s e l f o r a p p e l l a n t d i d make mention t o t h e c o u r t o f
c e r t a i n p o i n t s i n t h e r e p o r t t h a t he t h o u g h t were i n a c c u r a t e
o r inconsistent, the court indicated t h a t those matters
would be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n r e a c h i n g i t s d e c i s i o n .
Appellant d i d n o t m e e t h i s a f f i r m a t i v e duty of presenting
evidence o r testimony t o c o n t r a d i c t o r r e f u t e t h e m a t t e r s
alleged i n the report a s objectionable.
A p p e l l a n t asserts t h a t t h e r e p o r t l a c k e d any informa-
t i o n a s t o " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , c i r c u m s t a n c e s , n e e d s and p o t e n -
t i a l i t i e s " of a p p e l l a n t . W e do n o t a g r e e . Taken a s a
whole, t h e r e p o r t i s f u l l of i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a p p e l -
l a n t ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p o t e n t i a l . Information of t h a t
nature i s n o t only contained i n a p p e l l a n t ' s criminal h i s -
t o r y , b u t a l s o c o n t a i n e d i n i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g h i s phy-
s i c a l c o n d i t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n ; h i s f a m i l y and s o c i a l
background; h i s e d u c a t i o n a l , v o c a t i o n a l , and m a r i t a l h i s -
t o r i e s ; and summarized i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e r e p o r t .
Appellant next a l l e g e s t h a t t h e r e p o r t t o a l a r g e
e x t e n t shows b i a s and p r e j u d i c e on b e h a l f o f t h e o f f i c e r
presenting the report. W e f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s c o n t e n t i o n .
The r e p o r t i s a f a c t u a l summary o f a p p e l l a n t ' s c r i m i n a l ,
p h y s i c a l , f a m i l y , s o c i a l and e d u c a t i o n a l background. There
i s n o t h i n g on i t s f a c e t h a t would s u b s t a n t i a t e an a l l e g a t i o n
t h a t t h e o f f i c e r who p r e s e n t e d i t was b i a s e d o r p r e j u d i c e d .
A p p e l l a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t it was improper f o r t h e
probation o f f i c e r t o include information about a p p e l l a n t ' s
j u v e n i l e r e c o r d , c i t i n g s e c t i o n 41-3-205, MCA, t o support
t h a t contention. However, s e c t i o n 41-3-205, MCA, does n o t
a p p l y t o t h e j u v e n i l e r e c o r d of t h o s e y o u t h s under t h e
d e l i n q u e n c y p r o v i s i o n s of t h e j u v e n i l e l a w , commonly known
a s t h e Youth C o u r t Act. That s e c t i o n i s contained i n t h e
c h a p t e r of j u v e n i l e law concerned o n l y w i t h d e p e n d e n t and
neglect situations. The p r o v i s i o n s o f C h a p t e r 3, T i t l e 4 1 ,
d o n o t p e r t a i n t o p r o c e e d i n g s f o r d e l i n q u e n t s under t h e
Youth C o u r t Act.
The Youth C o u r t A c t d o e s , however, c o n t a i n a p r o v i s i o n
r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t h e r e p o r t s . S e c t i o n 41-5-
604, MCA.
I t i s the general r u l e t o allow juvenile records a s a
p a r t of p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t a t a s e n t e n c i n g
hearing. S e e 47 Am.Jur.2d J u v e n i l e C o u r t s S56 a t 1029. The
l e a d i n g c a s e i n t h i s f i e l d i s Hendrickson v. Myers ( 1 9 5 8 ) ,
393 Pa. 224, 1 4 4 A.2d 367, which h e l d t h a t d e p r i v i n g t h e
c o u r t s o f t h e i r r i g h t t o be informed o f and t o c o n s i d e r t h e
e n t i r e h i s t o r y and background of a p e r s o n s u b j e c t t o sen-
t e n c e may r e s u l t i n s e n t e n c e s t h a t are u n j u s t and u n f a i r t o
b o t h s o c i e t y and t h e d e f e n d a n t .
While w e a r e u n a b l e t o f i n d any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a
s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o Montana's, t h e r e a r e c a s e s t h a t have
i n t e r p r e t e d s t a t u t e s regarding t h e use of juvenile records
t h a t have a s i m i l a r p u r p o s e t o t h e Montana s t a t u t e . Wash-
i n g t o n h a s a s t a t u t e t h a t p r o v i d e s t h a t a n o r d e r of t h e
c o u r t a d j u d i c a t i n g a c h i l d d e l i n q u e n t s h a l l i n no c a s e be
deemed a c o n v i c t i o n o f a c r i m e . S e c t i o n 13.04-240, R.C.W.
S e e S t a t e v. Dainard ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 85 Wash.2d 624, 537 P.2d 760, a
c a s e h o l d i n g t h a t t h i s s t a t u t e w a s broad enough i n i t s
i n t e n t t o p e r m i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s i n sen-
tencing hearings. F o r c o u r t s t h a t have a l l o w e d t h e u s e o f
j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s i n p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t s see
Young v . S t a t e (Okla. 1 9 7 6 ) , 553 P.2d 192; P e o p l e v . McFarlin
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 389 Mich. 557, 208 N.W.2d 504; S t a t e v . F i e r r o
( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 0 1 A r i z . 118, 416 P . 2d 551.
The gravamen o f t h e d e c i s i o n s a l l o w i n g t h e s e n t e n c i n g
judge t o u s e t h e f u l l and complete r e p o r t s o f an i n d i v i -
d u a l ' s background i n making t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of s e n t e n c e
was s e t f o r t h by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t :
". . . h i g h l y relevant--if not essential--to
h i s s e l e c t i o n of an appropriate sentence i s
t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e f u l l e s t i n f o r m a t i o n pos-
s i b l e c o n c e r n i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s l i f e and c h a r -
a c t e r i s t i c s . And modern c o n c e p t s i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g
punishment have made i t a l l t h e more n e c e s s a r y
t h a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge n o t be d e n i e d t h e op-
p o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i n p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n by a
requirement of r i g i d adherence of r e s t r i c t i v e
r u l e s of evidence properly a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e
trial . .. [ p r o b a t i o n ] r e p o r t s have been g i v e n
a h i g h v a l u e by c o n s c i e n t i o u s judges who want t o
s e n t e n c e p e r s o n s o n t h e b e s t a v a i l a b l e informa-
t i o n r a t h e r t h a n o n guesswork and i n a d e q u a t e
information . . ." Williams v. N e w York, s u p r a ,
337 U.S. a t 247.
The same r a t i o n a l e c a n be a p p l i e d t o t h i s c a s e .
W n o t e t h a t t h e p u r p o s e of t h e Montana s t a t u t e r e g a r d -
e
i n g j u v e n i l e r e c o r d s i s t o p r e v e n t p u b l i c d i s s e m i n a t i o n of a
j u v e n i l e r e c o r d once t h a t i n d i v i d u a l a t t a i n s a n a g e of
majority. A s p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t s a r e r e q u i r e d by l a w t o b e
s e a l e d as w e l l , s e c t i o n 46-18-113(3), MCA, the public dis-
semination of m a t e r i a l i s avoided. A t t h e same t i m e t h e
sentencing judge is afforded the opportunity to have a
complete picture of the individual who is before him for
sentencing. There would seem to be no other purpose in
maintaining the sealed records of the youth court over a
period of at least ten years if they were not to be used in
considering the sentencing of an individual later as an
adult. See Young v. State, supra, where the Oklahoma court
used that rationale in allowing the admission of the juve-
nile records.
In this case, appellant was 34 years of age at the time
of sentencing. The report indicates an extensive criminal
record, subsequent to appellant's juvenile record. The
juvenile record was compiled long before the Youth Court Act
was passed in 1974. Considering the report as a whole, it
is doubtful that the information in the juvenile records
contained in the report played any significant role in the
court's sentence.
Appellant makes several other contentions concerning
factual inconsistencies. One, that the report had an al-
leged escape from Pine Hills at the time when appellant was
incarcerated in the state prison; two, that the report
concerned appellant's military record when he contended that
he had no such record; and three, that the report laid some
significance to information regarding the fact that he was
acquitted of Count I1 of the information with which he was
charged at trial, These matters were brought to the atten-
tion of the trial judge, and we can presume that the trial
judge was capable of giving appropriate weight to uncon-
firmed and inconsistent matters contained in the presentence
report. See State v. McManus (19731, 12 Ore-APP- 84, 504
P.2d 1046.
Appellant next alleges that the report is void of
information regarding harm to the victims and immediate
family or the community. However, the charge itself in this
case, which is set forth in the official version of the
crime section of the report, does contain that information.
Also, the sentencing and trial judge in this case was well
aware of that information. See State v. James (1977), 223
Kan. 107, 574 P.2d 181.
We note in summary that the entire report is consistent
with the purposes and rationale for requiring a presentence
investigation. The report did not make any recommendation
one way or the other regarding the sentencing, although
appellant, for some reason, contends it did. The summary of
the report provides no reason to return this matter to the
District Court for resentencing. The report was properly
used by the sentencing judge and provided him with a fair
objective review of appellant's history and meets all of the
rationale applied by courts for the use of such reports.
Appellant made no attempt to present witnesses to contradict
any of the provisions contained in the report or to provide
the court with additional information as to his character or
history. The report was, we find, properly applied in this
case. Its use provides no basis to remand for a further
resentencing hearing.
The second issue raised by appellant concerns the
inconsistency of the verdicts on the two counts of the
information charging appellant with burglary and theft. He
urges that, since he was acquitted on the charge of theft,
the conviction of burglary is inconsistent and therefore
must be reversed.
T h i s argument i s a l l b u t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e argument t h a t
was r a i s e d i n t h e f i r s t a p p e a l . See S t a t e v . Radi, s u p r a ,
578 P.2d a t 1176, 35 St.Rep. a t 496, where t h i s C o u r t r u l e d
on t h e contention a s follows:
"Defendant n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t h e f t c h a r g e
s h o u l d have been d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e i t a r o s e from
t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n a s t h e b u r g l a r y and t h e de-
f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t be c h a r g e d w i t h two o f f e n s e s .
However, d i f f e r e n t e l e m e n t s must be proven f o r
t h e c h a r g e o f t h e f t t h a n f o r a c h a r g e of b u r g l a r y
and we c a n n o t see e r r o r t o c h a r g e d e f e n d a n t w i t h
both offenses. W e n o t e a l s o t h a t t h e j u r y was
i n s t r u c t e d t o f i n d defendant n o t g u i l t y of t h e
t h e f t i f t h e y found him g u i l t y o f b u r g l a r y . S i n c e
i t d i d s o , w e s e e no p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . "
While t h e argument h e r e i s n o t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e a r g u -
ment r a i s e d on t h e p r i o r a p p e a l , t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e was
d e t e r m i n e d i n t h a t o p i n i o n , and we f i n d no m e r i t t o t h i s
issue.
A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n r e c e n t l y w a s a d d r e s s e d by t h i s
C o u r t i n S t a t e v. H o l l i d a y (19791, Mont. ,
- 598 P. 2d
1132, 1135, 36 St.Rep. 1535, 1539, where t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d :
". . . defendant i s presenting i n essence t h e
same i s s u e w e have p r e v i o u s l y d e c i d e d . The
d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e two arguments i s s u p e r f i c i a l ,
not substantive. It i s well established, t h a t
where a d e c i s i o n h a s been r e a c h e d by t h i s
C o u r t on a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e between t h e same
p a r t i e s i n t h e s a m e c a s e such d e c i s i o n i s b i n d -
i n g on t h e p a r t i e s and c o u r t s , and c a n n o t be
r e l i t i g a t e d i n a subsequent appeal, s u b j e c t t o
c e r t a i n exceptions n o t p e r t i n e n t here. [Cita-
t i o n s omitted.] The d e f e n d a n t i s bound by o u r
previous determination t h a t defendant i s not
e n t i t l e d t o a d i s m i s s a l of a l l c h a r g e s . "
Here, a s i n H o l l i d a y , a p p e l l a n t i s bound by t h e p r e v i -
o u s r u l i n g and i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o reassert h i s p o s i t i o n on
t h i s appeal.
The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
W e concur:
<
, P
C ief Justice
/?
--- -.
.'
- ,-
I Justices 8
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g :
I concur i n t h e r e s u l t of t h e c a s e .
On t h e f i r s t i s s u e I concur on t h e grounds t h a t t h e
defendant cannot a t t a c k t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e presentence r e p o r t
b e c a u s e he d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e any r e b u t t i n g e v i d e n c e a t t h e t i m e
of sentencing. I do n o t a g r e e w i t h a l l t h e d i s c u s s i o n of t h a t
i s s u e however.
I a g r e e w i t h t h e second i s s u e on t h e grounds s t a t e d i n
t h e majority opinion.
.................................
Chief J u s t i c e
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea w i l l f i l e a n o p i n i o n l a t e r .