State v. Huttinger

No. 14546

I N THE SUPREME C W O THE S A E OF M3JXWW
F T T

1979

THE smIE OF I'xmlmm,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

-vs-

BRAD m A
I M m-,
Defendant and Appellant.

-
1 frcm: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable H. William Coder, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant:

Ralph T. Randono argued, Great F a l l s , bbntana

For Respondent:

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, H e l e n a , Montana
Chris Tweeten argued, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, mntana
J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana

S-tted: M y 3, 1979
a

Decided: 2
MD;~ 2
.-
\:73
Filed :I - '
I
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t ;

D e f e n d a n t Brad H u t t i n g e r a p p e a l s from t h e o r d e r o f t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f Cascade County, t h e Honorable H . W i l l i a m

C o d e r , d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o withdraw a p l e a of g u i l t y t o

t h e c h a r g e o f d e l i b e r a t e homicide. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t

postponed s e n t e n c i n g pending t h e f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s

appeal. H u t t i n g e r r e m a i n s a t Warn S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l

where h e was s e n t p e n d i n g s e n t e n c i n g .

On J u l y 9 , 1 9 7 6 , H u t t i n g e r was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e crimes

o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e and a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g i n t h e

s t a b b i n g d e a t h o f a n e l d e r l y G r e a t F a l l s woman. The D i s -

t r i c t Court ordered a p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n of H u t t i n g e r

which was c o n d u c t e d on August 4 , 1976. The r e p o r t i n g psy-

c h i a t r i s t , D r . Ronald Hughes, c o n c l u d e d t h a t on t h e d a t e o f

t h e crimes c h a r g e d t h a t H u t t i n g e r , a l t h o u g h u n d e r t h e i n f l u -

e n c e o f a v a r i e t y o f p s y c h o a c t i v e d r u g s , "knew t h e d i f f e r e n c e

between r i g h t a n d wrong i n s o f a r a s i t i s r e l a t e d t o t h e

c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him" a n d d i d n o t " l a c k t h e a b i l i t y t o a d h e r e

t o the right." ( U l t i m a t e l y , however, D r . Hughes recommended

t h a t H u t t i n g e r b e h o s p i t a l i z e d i n t h e maximum s e c u r i t y ward

a t Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l . )

On December 3 , 1976, H u t t i n g e r e n t e r e d a p l e a o f n o t

g u i l t y t o t h e o f f e n s e charged. On F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 1 9 7 7 , Hut-

t i n g e r a l l e g e d l y changed h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y o n t h e c h a r g e o f

d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e i n exchange f o r a d i s m i s s a l o f t h e

charge of aggravated kidnapping.
Immediately a f t e r t h e February 1 4 proceedings, H u t t i n g e r

w a s s e n t t o Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l f o r a c o m p l e t e
psychiatric evaluation. The examining p s y c h i a t r i s t , D r .

W i l l i a m Alexander, concluded:
 "Summary: T h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e o f o r g a n i c i n v o l v e -
ment. P a t i e n t i s f e l t t o b e p s y c h o t i c because of
his f l a t affect, his intellectual deterioration,
and h i s i n a b i l i t y t o h a n d l e a b s t r a c t c o n c e p t s .
H i s a c t u a l i l l n e s s i s q u i t e w e l l encapsulated.
H e seems t o b e a c o m p u l s i v e t y p e who h a s a g r e a t
d e a l of i n t e r n a l h o s t i l i t y which i s b a r e l y con-
t r o l l e d most o f t h e t i m e . H e has a g r e a t d i f f i -
culty i n trying t o s o r t o u t h i s feelings about
h i s normal p a s s i v i t y i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e o c c a -
s i o n a l o u t b u r s t s o f a g g r e s s i o n . There i s a g r e a t
d e a l o f a n x i e t y which i s r e l a t e d t o h i s f e a r s of
l o s i n g c o n t r o l over himself.

" P a t i e n t i s aware o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c h a r g e s
a g a i n s t him and h a s t h e a b i l i t y t o a s s i s t h i s
l a w y e r i n h i s own d e f e n s e . H e i s a l s o aware o f
t h e c r i m i n a l i t y of h i s actions. Because of h i s
s e v e r e emotional problems he h a s been unable t o
conduct himself according t o t h e requirements of
t h e law. H e i s a b l e t o have a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e
o f mind which i s a n e l e m e n t o f t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d .

"Diagnosis: Schizophrenia, paranoid type."

I n a c l a r i f y i n g l e t t e r r e c e i v e d on J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 7 7 , D r .

Alexander wrote t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court:

" I n my o p i n i o n , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n c i d e n t , t h i s
p a t i e n t w a s unable t o conduct himself according
t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e law b e c a u s e o f h i s
s e v e r e , c h r o n i c , e m o t i o n a l i l l n e s s which p r o b a b l y
s t a r t e d i n v e r y e a r l y c h i l d h o o d b u t was c e r t a i n l y
p r e s e n t e i g h t y e a r s a g o , and f o r which h e h a s ,
t o m knowledge, n e v e r r e c e i v e d t r e a t m e n t . "
y

On September 1, 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s e n t e n c e d

H u t t i n g e r t o 100 y e a r s i n p r i s o n w i t h o u t p a r o l e . Huttinger

a p p e a l e d t h e s e n t e n c e and on A p r i l 1 0 , 1 9 7 8 , t h i s C o u r t , i n

a n unreported p e r curiam o r d e r , vacated t h e sentence pur-

s u a n t t o a s t i p u l a t i o n o f c o u n s e l and remanded t h e c a s e f o r

resentencing.

H u t t i n g e r t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d a Motion f o r Leave o f C o u r t

f o r Motion t o Withdraw P l e a o f G u i l t y on May 2 6 , 1978. A t a

hearing on t h i s motion, Huttinger a s s e r t e d t h a t , p r i o r t o

o r i g i n a l l y e n t e r i n g h i s p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e o f

d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , h e had n o t been i n f o r m e d o f t h e a v a i l -

a b i l i t y of t h e p o s s i b l e d e f e n s e of i n s a n i t y o r t h a t o t h e r
f a c t o r s p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e of t h e crime c h a r g e d m i g h t s e r v e
t o m i t i g a t e h i s sentence. The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y o f

~ u t t i n g e r ' sa t t o r n e y s a t t h e t i m e o f e n t r y of h i s p l e a o f

g u i l t y t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e y had d i s c u s s e d t h e i n s a n i t y

d e f e n s e w i t h H u t t i n g e r a n d h e had r e j e c t e d i t .

On August 1 0 , 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d -

i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and a n o r d e r d e n y i n g H u t t i n g e r ' s m o t i o n .

Huttinger appeals.

The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w i s :

Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g

H u t t i n g e r ' s motion t o withdraw h i s p l e a of g u i l t y ?

This a p p e a l r e q u i r e s a balancing of t h r e e c o n f l i c t i n g

f a c t o r s o r aspects involved i n a criminal defendant's a t -

tempt t o withdraw a p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d p l e a of g u i l t y . The

t h r e e f a c t o r s o f which w e s p e a k are (1) t h e adequacy o f t h e

i n t e r r o g a t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e

e n t r y of t h e g u i l t y p l e a a s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s understanding

o f t h e consequences of h i s p l e a , ( 2 ) t h e promptness w i t h

which t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t s t o w i t h d r a w t h e p r i o r p l e a , and

( 3 ) t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a was a p p a r e n t l y t h e

r e s u l t o f a p l e a b a r g a i n i n which t h e g u i l t y p l e a was g i v e n

i n exchange f o r d i s m i s s a l o f a n o t h e r c h a r g e , i n t h i s case,

aggravated kidnapping, a felony. A l l t h r e e f a c t o r s , among

o t h e r s , have been d i s c u s s e d i n p r e v i o u s cases a s c o n s i d e r a -

t i o n s i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether a D i s t r i c t Court

should allow t h e withdrawal o f a g u i l t y p l e a .

Before discussing t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r s , w e f i r s t

s t a t e some g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e w i t h d r a w a l of a

g u i l t y plea. The r i g h t o f a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t t o a t r i a l

by j u r y i s s a f e g u a r d e d by A r t . 1 1 S e c t i o n s 2 4 and 2 6 o f t h e
1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . S e c t i o n 95-1606 ( e ) , R.C.M. 1947,

now s e c t i o n 46-12-204 MCA, states i n part:

"The d e f e n d a n t s h a l l e n t e r a p l e a o f g u i l t y o r
not g u i l t y t o the indictment, information o r
complaint. If t h e d e f e n d a n t r e f u s e s t o p l e a d
t o t h e indictment, information o r complaint a
p l e a of n o t g u i l t y m u s t b e e n t e r e d .

"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 o f 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 w i t h o u t
f i r s t determining t h a t t h e p l e a i s voluntary
w i t h an understanding of t h e charge."

More s p e c i f i c a l l y , s e c t i o n 95-1902, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n

46-16-105(2) MCA, states i n part:

"At any t i m e 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 c a u s e shown p e r m i t t h e p l e a o f
g u i l t y t o b e withdrawn and a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y
substituted. "

" T h e r e i s no s e t r u l e o r s t a n d a r d which c a n b e r e l i e d

o n i n a n y g i v e n c a s e where a motion i s made t o w i t h d r a w a

g u i l t y plea." S t a t e v. L e w i s (1978), Mon t . , 582

P.2d 346, 352, 35 S t - R e p . 1 0 8 9 , 1096. "Each c a s e m u s t b e

examined o n i t s own r e c o r d . . ." S t a t e v. G r i f f i n (1975),

1 6 7 Mont. 11, 21, 535 P.2d 498, 503.

"The g r a n t i n g o r r e f u s a l o f p e r m i s s i o n t o w i t h -
draw a p l e a o f g u i l t y and s u b s t i t u t e a p l e a o f
n o t g u i l t y rests i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l
c o u r t and i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w o n l y upon a show-
i n g of an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . S t a t e v . Nance,
( 1 9 4 7 ) , 120 Mont. 1 5 2 , 184 P.2d 554.

"A p l e a o f g u i l t y w i l l b e deemed i n v o l u n t a r y
where i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was l a b o r i n g
under such a s t r o n g inducement, fundamental m i s -
t a k e , 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 pos-
s i b i l i t y e x i s t s h e may have p l e a d g u i l t y t o a
c r i m e o f which h e i s i n n o c e n t . " S t a t e ex rel.
Gladue v . E i q h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
-
Mont . , 575 P.2d 65, 6 6 , 35 S t . R e p . 220,
221-22.

I f , however, t h e r e i s a n y d o u b t t h a t a p l e a i s n o t

voluntary, t h e doubt should be resolved i n t h e defendant's

favor. On a p p l i c a t i o n t o change a p l e a , a l l d o u b t s s h o u l d

b e r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r o f a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . S t a t e v.
Doty (1977) Mont. , 566 P.2d 1 3 8 8 , 1391, 34 S t .

Rep. 731, 734.

With t h e s e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s i n mind, w e p r o c e e d t o a n

examination of t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s d e s c r i b e d above.

Adequacy - D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s I n t e r r o g a t i o n .
of For e a s e

of a n a l y s i s , w e f i n d it h e l p f u l t o set f o r t h t h e complete

t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e h e a r i n g a t which H u t t i n g e r a l l e g e d l y made

h i s g u i l t y plea:

"THE COURT: L a d i e s and Gentlemen, t h i s C o u r t
w i l l now b e i n s e s s i o n . This i s t h e S t a t e of
Montana a g a i n s t Brad W i l l i a m H u t t i n g e r , Cause
No. 6857 A. M r . B a r r o n , you a r e r e p r e s e n t i n g
t h e defendant, M r . Huttinger, i n t h i s matter?

"MR. BARRON: I do.

"THE COURT: And i t i s o f c o u r s e u n d e r s t o o d a t
t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e you w i s h t o e n t e r a change
of p l e a i n t h i s c a s e ; it t h a t c o r r e c t ?

"MR. BARRON: Y e s , y o u r Honor. M r . H u t t i n g e r
would a s k l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w h i s p l e a o f Not
G u i l t y t o D e l i b e r a t e Homicide.

"THE COURT: You u n d e r s t a n d what a p l e a o f g u i l t y
e n t a i l s i n t h i s m a t t e r , do you n o t , M r . H u t t i n g e r ?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes; I do.

"THE COURT: You u n d e r s t a n d t h a t c h a n g e o f p l e a ,
you waive y o u r r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t ? You u n d e r -
stand that?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You u n d e r s t a n d t h a t you w a i v e y o u r
r i g h t t o c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t you i n t h i s m a t t e r ?
You u n d e r s t a n d t h a t ?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You w a i v e your r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l ,
you u n d e r s t a n d t h a t ?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You a l s o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t you w a i v e
y o u r r i g h t t o compel a t t e n d a n c e o f w i t n e s s e s t o
a p p e a r and t e s t i f y o n y o u r b e h a l f ; you u n d e r s t a n d
that?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.
"THE COURT: You u n d e r s t a n d t h e p e n a l t y f o r D e -
l i b e r a t e Homicide i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana i s
i m p r i s o n m e n t i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , Deer
Lodge, f o r a t e r m n o t t o e x c e e d o n e hundred y e a r s ;
you u n d e r s t a n d t h a t ?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: I t i s a l s o t h e c o u r t ' s understanding,
Mr. B a r r o n , t h a t t h e r e have been some n e g o t i a -
t i o n s with regard t o d i s m i s s a l of t h e o t h e r count
o f A g g r a v a t e d Kidnapping; i s t h a t c o r r e c t ?

"MR. BARRON: That i s c o r r e c t , your H o n o r . W e
a r e i n f o r m e d by M r . Bourdeau h e w i l l d i s m i s s t h e
A g g r a v a t e d Kidnapping c h a r g e .

"THE COURT: Mr. Bourdeau?

"MR. BOURDEAU: Y e s , y o u r Honor. A t t h i s t i m e
t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i l l o r a l l y move t h e C o u r t f o r
permission t o d i s m i s s t h e charge of Aggravated
Kidnapping h e r e t o f o r e f i l e d i n t h i s a c t i o n .

"THE COURT: Okay. A t t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e , M r .
H u t t i n g e r , i t i s incumbent upon t h e C o u r t t o
a s c e r t a i n a n d make a f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r t h e p l e a
of g u i l t y . You u n d e r s t a n d what t h e C o u r t i s
i n d i c a t i n g now?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"MR. BUTTINGER: Yes.

-
"THE COURT: A l l r i g h t , M r . H u t t i n g e r . - Court
The
w i l l a c c e p t --- a o f G u i l t y t o D e l i b e r a t e
your p l e
Homicide, and t h e C o u r t w i l l a l s o a c c e p t t h e
County A t t o r n e y ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e A g g r a v a t e d
Kidnapping i n t h i s m a t t e r . By v i r t u e o f t h e na-
t u r e of t h i s case, M r . Huttinger, t h e Court w i l l
o r d e r 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 , and i t i s t h e
C o u r t ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g a t t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e from
y o u r c o u n s e l , M r . B a r r o n , t h a t h e would l i k e t o
have, a s a p a r t o f t h e pre-sentence i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,
a n e x a m i n a t i o n by D r . A l e x a n d e r a t t h e Warm S p r i n g s
S t a t e Hospital; i s t h a t correct?

"MR. BARRON: T h a t ' s r i g h t , y o u r Honor.

"THE COURT: The C o u r t w i l l a c c e p t a p l e a o f
G u i l t y i n t h i s m a t t e r , $Ir. H u t t i n g e r . I w i l l set
t h e h e a r i n g on t h e s e n t e n c i n g March 1 4 , 1977, a t
2 P . M . a n d t h e C o u r t w i l l o r d e r you t r a n s f e r r e d
t o Warm S p r i n g s f o r a n e x a m i n a t i o n p r i o r t o t h e
sentencing.
 "MR. BARRON: Your Honor, t h e r e h a v e b e e n two
r e p o r t s r e c e i v e d by t h e C o u r t , o n e p s y c h o l o g i c a l
e v a l u a t i o n , o n e p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n from o u r
Mental Health C l i n i c here. I would l i k e p e r m i s -
s i o n from t h e C o u r t t o have t h e C l e r k copy t h o s e
and f u r n i s h m e w i t h c o p i e s , and a s a p a r t of t h e
p r e - s e n t e n c e r e p o r t , w e would a l s o l i k e t o h a v e
M r . H u t t i n g e r ' s r e p o r t s from M i l e s C i t y and Twin
B r i d g e s i n o r d e r t o make i t a c o m p l e t e r e p o r t t o
t h e Court.

"THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . For p u r p o s e s o f s e n t e n c i n g
h a v e t h e C o u r t f i l e made a v a i l a b l e t o you.

"MR. BARRON: Thank you.

"COURT ADJOURNED." ( k p h a s i s added.)

Review o f t h i s t r a n s c r i p t r e v e a l s s e v e r a l s e r i o u s

inadequacies. A t t h e most b a s i c , i t appears t h a t H u t t i n g e r

n e v e r r e a l l y d i d a d m i t , i n s o many words, t h a t h e committed

a n y d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , o n l y t h a t s u c h a h o m i c i d e was

committed. N e i t h e r d i d h e a c t u a l l y p l e a d g u i l t y t o any

o f f e n s e a t a l l ; he o n l y asked " l e a v e t o withdraw h i s p l e a of

Not Gui 1 y
t ."

Beyond t h e s e p e r h a p s t e c h n i c a l o r s e m a n t i c d i s c r e -

p a n c i e s , however, t h e r e a r e more s e r i o u s f l a w s . Never was

t h e name o f t h e v i c t i m s t a t e d o r t h e d a t e o r p l a c e o f t h e

alleged offense specified; nothing t o i d e n t i f y t h e particu-

l a r crime t o which H u t t i n g e r a l l e g e d l y was p l e a d i n g s p e c i -

f i c a l l y appears i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t . The u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s o f

t h e offense w e r e n o t s t a t e d o r admitted. I n s h o r t , Hut-

t i n g e r d i d n o t p l e a d anything t o any o f f e n s e s p e c i f i e d i n

a n y manner.

Further, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t a s c e r t a i n p a r t i c u -

l a r l y t h a t d e f e n d a n t was s a t i s f i e d w i t h h i s a p p o i n t e d

c o u n s e l o r t h a t h e t h o u g h t h i s c o u n s e l was c o m p e t e n t .

F i n a l l y , t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of t h e g u i l t y p l e a i s c a l l e d

f u r t h e r i n t o q u e s t i o n by t h e f a c t t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r

e n t r y of t h e p l e a , H u t t i n g e r was s e n t t o Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e
H o s p i t a l f o r p s y c h i a t r i c e x a m i n a t i o n and t r e a t m e n t . He

remained a t Warm S p r i n g s f o r o v e r s i x months b e f o r e b e i n g

s e n t e n c e d and i s c u r r e n t l y b e i n g h e l d a t Warm S p r i n g s pend-

i n g t h i s appeal. The q u e s t i o n n a t u r a l l y a r i s e s , was Hut-

t i n g e r competent t o e n t e r any p l e a ?

I n S t a t e v. L e w i s , 582 P.2d a t 352, 35 S t - R e p . a t 1 0 9 7 ,

w e held:

.
". . when i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e d u r e , t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t c a r e f u l l y , as h e r e , examines t h e
d e f e n d a n t , f i n d s him t o b e c o m p e t e n t , a n d d e t e r -
m i n e s from him t h a t h i s p l e a o f g u i l t y i s v o l u n -
t a r y , h e u n d e r s t a n d s t h e c h a r g e and h i s p o s s i b l e
punishment, he i s n o t a c t i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e
of drugs o r a l c o h o l , he admits h i s counsel i s
c o m p e t e n t and h e h a s been w e l l a d v i s e d , and h e
d e c l a r e s i n open c o u r t t h e f a c t s upon which h i s
g u i l t i s based, then a p l e a of g u i l t y accepted
by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on t h e b a s i s o f t h a t exami-
n a t i o n w i l l be upheld .. ."
When compared t o t h e s e s t a n d a r d s , t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n o f

H u t t i n g e r by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e f a l l s

s h o r t on a l l c o u n t s .

T h e r e i s o n e o t h e r r e s p e c t i n which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

i n t e r r o g a t i o n i s inadequate. I n S t a t e v . Azure ( 1 9 7 7 ) , -

Mont. , 573 P.2d 1 7 9 , 34 St.Rep. 1569, t h i s C o u r t va-

c a t e d t h e judgment and s e n t e n c e and i n s t r u c t e d t h e D i s t r i c t

Court t o a l l o w t h e withdrawal of t h e g u i l t y p l e a . We stated

as o u r r a t i o n a l e :

"The D i s t r i c t C o u r t made no i n q u i r y a s t o w h e t h e r
d e f e n d a n t u n d e r s t o o d t h a t by p u r p o s e l y o r know-
i n g l y c a u s i n g t h e d e a t h o f Randy L e w i s h e may
have committed e i t h e r d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e o r m i t i -
g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e . Nor was d e f e n d a n t
i n f o r m e d t h a t i f h e went t o t r i a l on t h e c h a r g e
o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , h e would have t h e r i g h t
t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e o f m i t i g a t i o n , and i f t h e
j u r y a c c e p t e d h i s v e r s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e and
c o n v i c t e d him o f m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e ,
t h e maximum s e n t e n c e h e c o u l d r e c e i v e would b e
a 40 y e a r p r i s o n t e r m .
 "When a n a c c u s e d p l e a d s g u i l t y t o t h e c r i m e o f
d e l i b e r a t e homicide charged under Montana's
s t a t u t o r y scheme which sets o u t d i s t i n c t k i n d s
o f c r i m i n a l homicide, i t i s o f v i t a l importance
t h a t t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h e d e f e n d a n t had a
f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p r e c i s e k i n d o f homi-
c i d e t o which h e p l e a d . A b s e n t s u c h a showing,
t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t assume t h e p l e a w a s made
'with an understanding of t h e charge.'

"Because t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t determine
w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t u n d e r s t o o d t h e d i f f e r i n g ele-
ments and e f f e c t s o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e and
m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide, w e hold t h a t ac-
ceptance of h i s p l e a of g u i l t y w a s improper.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have g r a n t e d d e f e n -
d a n t ' s motion f o r l e a v e t o withdraw t h e g u i l t y
plea." 573 P.2d a t 1 8 3 , 34 St.Rep. a t 1574,
1575.

W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e i n s t a n t a p p e a l i s g o v e r n e d by

Azure, a t l e a s t s o f a r a s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e adequacy o f

the D i s t r i c t Court's interrogation. I n n e i t h e r c a s e was t h e

defendant informed of t h e d i f f e r i n g elements of homicide,

a l t h o u g h i n b o t h cases t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t knew, o r s h o u l d

h a v e known, o f p o s s i b l e e v i d e n c e o f m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s - -

i n b o t h cases t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f d r u g s

a n d a l c o h o l and p o s s i b l y s u f f e r i n g from m e n t a l d i s t r e s s o r

instability. I n both c a s e s , t h e defendant appeared i n c o u r t

w i t h a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l and e n t e r e d a p l e a o f g u i l t y t o t h e

charge of d e l i b e r a t e homicide. When compared t o t h e D i s -

t r i c t C o u r t i n t e r r o g a t i o n found i n a d e q u a t e i n Azure, t h e

i n t e r r o g a t i o n of t h e defendant h e r e i s even less s u f f i c i e n t .

The S t a t e ' s argument t h a t w e s h o u l d n o t r e t r o a c t i v e l y

a p p l y Azure ( o r presumably L e w i s ) i s n o t p e r s u a s i v e . While

i t i s t r u e t h a t Azure w a s d e c i d e d a f t e r t h e o r i g i n a l e n t r y

o f t h e g u i l t y p l e a , i t was d e c i d e d b e f o r e H u t t i n g e r ' s motion

t o w i t h d r a w h i s p l e a and b e f o r e h e had been s e n t e n c e d .

Even more i m p o r t a n t , however, i s t h a t t h e e q u i t i e s o f

t h e s i t u a t i o n and t h e e n d s o f j u s t i c e f a v o r a p p l i c a t i o n o f
t h e s e l a t e r cases t o t h e i n s t a n t appeal. By a p p l y i n g them,

w e a r e n o t r e l e a s i n g H u t t i n g e r from h i s p o s s i b l e c r i m i n a l

liability. R a t h e r , t h e c a s e would m e r e l y go t o t r i a l . As

w e s t a t e d i n Doty, 566 P.2d a t 1391, 34 S t . R e p . a t 734-35:

" H e r e , a n y i r r e g u l a r i t y and d o u b t s h o u l d have
been r e s o l v e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n f a v o r of
d e f e n d a n t , i n h i s m o t i o n f o r a change o f p l e a ;
t h e n t h a t d o u b t c o u l d p r o p e r l y b e r e s o l v e d by
a jury. Only t h r o u g h t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s f o l -
lowing a change o f p l e a would t h e e n d s of j u s -
t i c e b e s t be served i n t h i s case."

I n any e v e n t , t h e r u l e s s t a t e d i n Azure and L e w i s a r e

n o t new. The law i n b o t h c a s e s c a n b e t r a c e d back t h r o u g h

many d e c i s i o n s o v e r many y e a r s . See, e . g . , S t a t e v. C a s a r a s

( 1 9 3 7 ) , 104 Mont. 404, 66 P.2d 774; S t a t e v . Nance ( 1 9 4 7 ) ,

1 2 0 Mont. 152, 184 P.2d 554; S t a t e v . 5lcBane ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 128

Mont. 369, 275 P . 2d 218.

Having c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n of H u t t i n g e r by

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was i n a d e q u a t e f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r

h i s g u i l t y p l e a was v o l u n t a r i l y g i v e n , w e p r o c e e d t o con-

s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t o f t h e two a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s

specified earlier.

T i m e l i n e s s o f -e Motion - Withdraw.
- th to I n S t a t e v.

Lewis, 582 P.2d a t 352, 35 St.Rep. a t 1096, and S t a t e v .

S a t t l e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 35, 549 P.2d 1080, 1081, t h i s

C o u r t h e l d t h a t a c l a i m o f l a c h e s may l i e a g a i n s t a motion

t o withdraw a g u i l t y p l e a i n c a s e s where t h e r e c o r d s upon

which t h e p l e a of g u i l t y was e n t e r e d a r e m i s s i n g , t h e w i t -
n e s s e s a r e u n a v a i l a b l e , o r e v i d e n c e h a s been d i s p o s e d o f .

The S t a t e a s s e r t s t h a t l a c h e s s h o u l d s i m i l a r l y b a r Hut-

t i n g e r ' s motion h e r e .

H u t t i n g e r f i r s t e n t e r e d h i s g u i l t y p l e a on F e b r u a r y 1 4 ,

1977. H e t h e r e a f t e r w a s s e n t e n c e d t o 100 y e a r s i n p r i s o n

w i t h o u t p a r o l e on September 1, 1977. This sentence w a s
v a c a t e d by t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l by s t i p u l a t i o n o f c o u n s e l ,

a n d t h e c a u s e remanded f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g on A p r i l 1 0 , 1978.

S i x weeks l a t e r , o n May 26, and b e f o r e h e had been r e s e n -

tenced, H u t t i n g e r f i l e d h i s motion f o r withdrawal of p l e a .

This sequence i n d i c a t e s d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n h e r e i s

s t r o n g e r t h a n t h a t found t o j u s t i f y a c l a i m o f l a c h e s i n

Lewis. C f . S t a t e v . Nance ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 120 Mont. 1 5 2 , 184 P.2d

554 ( o n e month between e n t r y o f g u i l t y p l e a and m o t i o n t o

withdraw h e l d n o t reasonably t i m e l y ) . I n L e w i s over one

y e a r e l a p s e d between t h e d a t e of s e n t e n c i n g and t h e d a t e o f

t h e m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w p l e a , w i t h no r e c o r d o f a n i n t e r -

v e n i n g a p p e a l t o t h e Supreme C o u r t . I n the i n s t a n t case,

w h i l e e i g h t and o n e - h a l f months e l a p s e d between t h e d a t e o f

s e n t e n c i n g and t h e m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w , t h e r e a l s o was t h e

i n t e r v e n i n g a p p e a l and r e v e r s a l o f t h e s e n t e n c e . ~uttinger

p r o m p t l y p r o c e e d e d t o make h i s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w a f t e r t h e

f i r s t s e n t e n c e was v a c a t e d and b e f o r e t h e new s e n t e n c e was

pronounced. N e i t h e r h a s t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d any e v i d e n c e

t h a t records a r e l o s t , evidence missing, o r witnesses unavail-

a b l e a s was d o n e i n S a t t l e r . I n f a c t , p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d on

a p p e a l a r e t h e p o l i c e r e p o r t s made d u r i n g t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n

o f t h e homicide.

"The g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d r u l e i s t h a t i n o r d e r t o re-

c e i v e f a v o r a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n an a p p l i c a t i o n t o withdraw a

p l e a of g u i l t y s h o u l d b e made w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . "

S t a t e v . Nance, 120 Nont. a t 165, 184 P.2d a t 561. Section

95-1902, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 46-16-105(2) MCA, p r o v i d e s

t h a t w i t h d r a w a l may b e made " [ a l t any t i m e b e f o r e o r a f t e r

judgment." I n S t a t e v . McBane, 128 Mont. a t 3 7 7 , 275 P.2d

a t 222, J u s t i c e F r e e b o u r n s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r e d s t a t i n g :
 "Being g u a r a n t e e d t h e r i g h t t o a t r i a l by j u r y ,
t h e r e i s no sound r e a s o n , s i n c e t h e s t a t e g i v e s
up n o t h i n g , why a d e f e n d a n t c h a r g e d w i t h a
felony should b e denied t h e ' s a c r e d 1 r i g h t t o a
t r i a l by j u r y , where a f t e r p l e a o f g u i l t y b u t be-
f o r e t h e commencement o f h i s s e n t e n c e h e demands
such r i g h t . "

H u t t i n g e r ' s m o t i o n , made b e f o r e f i n a l s e n t e n c i n g and

b e f o r e h e a c t u a l l y s t a r t e d s e r v i n g h i s s e n t e n c e , was t i m e l y .

P l e a Bargaining. I n exchange f o r H u t t i n g e r ' s p l e a o f

g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e , t h e Cascade

County A t t o r n e y a g r e e d t o a d i s m i s s a l o f a c h a r g e o f a g g r a -

v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g a l t h o u g h no w r i t t e n r e c o r d of t h i s p l e a

b a r g a i n was made. T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d many t i m e s t h a t

". . . i t w i l l n o t l e n d i t s a s s i s t a n c e t o an accused c r i m i -

n a l i n escaping t h e o b l i g a t i o n s of h i s agreement a f t e r

accepting the benefits thereof. " S t a t e v . S a t t l e r (1976) ,

1 7 0 Mont. 35, 37, 549 P.2d 1080, 1081. Accord, S t a t e v .

Nance ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 1 2 0 Mont. a t 1 6 6 , 184 P.2d a t 561.

T h i s i s u n d o u b t e d l y t h e most t r o u b l i n g a s p e c t o f t h i s

a p p e a l and i s t h e f a c t o r w e i g h i n g m o s t s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t

a l l o w i n g H u t t i n g e r t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a . W e con-

c l u d e , however, t h a t i t d o e s n o t o u t w e i g h t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s

which f a v o r a l l o w i n g w i t h d r a w a l .

T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s b a s e d on s e v e r a l g r o u n d s . First, as

noted e a r l i e r , immediately a f t e r e n t r y of h i s g u i l t y p l e a ,

H u t t i n g e r was s e n t t o Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l f o r psy-

c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n and t r e a t m e n t . H e r e m a i n e d a t Warm

S p r i n g s f o r o v e r s i x months b e f o r e b e i n g f i r s t s e n t e n c e d .

A f t e r s e n t e n c i n g , H u t t i n g e r was t r a n s f e r r e d t o Warm S p r i n g s

f o r further treatment. H e i s now i n Warm S p r i n g s p e n d i n g

t h i s appeal. I n a l l , s i n c e J u l y 1976 when h e was f i r s t

c h a r g e d , H u t t i n g e r h a s s p e n t n i n e months i n t h e S t a t e Hos-

p i t a l a n d o n l y s i x months i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n . Therefore,
 t h e r e i s now, a n d t h e r e w a s a t t h e t i m e o f h i s g u i l t y p l e a ,

a s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n a s t o H u t t i n g e r ' s competency t o e n t e r

i n t o any p l e a b a r g a i n .

Second, a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w h i s

g u i l t y p l e a , H u t t i n g e r and h i s ( a d o p t i v e ) p a r e n t s b o t h

t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a d e f e n s e b a s e d on m e n t a l

d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t was n o t p r e s e n t e d o r d i s c u s s e d by e i t h e r

of h i s appointed counsel. While t h i s t e s t i m o n y was c o n t r a -

d i c t e d by t e s t i m o n y from t h e a t t o r n e y s i n v o l v e d , i t d o e s

r a i s e a q u e s t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r H u t t i n g e r was s a t i s f i e d w i t h

t h e competency o f h i s a t t o r n e y . T h i s g o e s t o t h e i s s u e of

w h e t h e r H u t t i n g e r w a s aware o f a l l h i s o p t i o n s b e f o r e

entering i n t o t h e plea bargain. A s noted e a r l i e r , whether

t h e d e f e n d a n t was s a t i s f i e d w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y ' s competency

i s o n e o f t h e a r e a s t h a t s h o u l d b e i n v e s t i g a t e d by t h e

D i s t r i c t Court a t t h e t i m e it accepts a g u i l t y plea. State

v . L e w i s , 582 P.2d a t 352, 35 St.Rep. a t 1097. This inves-

t i g a t i o n was n o t u n d e r t a k e n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h i s

case.

S i m i l a r l y , nowhere d o e s i t a p p e a r t h a t H u t t i n g e r was

advised of t h e f a c t t h a t he could i n t r o d u c e evidence i n

m i t i g a t i o n of t h e d e l i b e r a t e homicide c h a r g e . H e was n o t

informed, i n a sense, of a l l t h e elements of t h e p l e a bar-

g a i n i n g arrangement. I t i s c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t had h e known

t h a t t h e d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e c h a r g e , c a r r y i n g a maximum t e r m

o f 1 0 0 y e a r s o r p e r h a p s d e a t h , c o u l d have p o s s i b l y been

r e d u c e d by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o

m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e c a r r y i n g a maximum s e n t e n c e o f

4 0 y e a r s , H u t t i n g e r m i g h t have d e c i d e d n o t t o e n t e r i n t o t h e

plea bargain. S e e , S t a t e v . Azure, s u p r a .
 W e emphasize a g a i n t h a t d o u b t s i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g

motions t o withdraw a g u i l t y p l e a should b e r e s o l v e d i n

f a v o r of a l l o w i n g w i t h d r a w a l and a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s .

T a k i n g a l l t h e f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e and r e s o l v i n g

doubts i n favor of t h e defendant, w e conclude t h a t t h e

D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w

H u t t i n g e r t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a .

The judgment o f 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 e

c a s e .is remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

t h i s opinion.

/ Justice
W e concur:

&44&&&w4
Chief ~ u g t i c e
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d i s s e n t i n g :

I respectfully dissent. A s I view i t , w e have a f a c -

t u a l s i t u a t i o n t h a t t a k e s p l a c e o v e r a two-year p e r i o d ,

i n v o l v i n g t h r e e d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y s and a t r i a l judge making

every e f f o r t t o explain t o t h e defendant h i s r i g h t s . Perhaps

t h e g o l d e n words "Are you g u i l t y o f t h e murder o f M r s . I1

w e r e n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y used, b u t t h e t r i a l judge asked i n t h e

c o l l o q u y between t h e c o u r t , t h e d e f e n d a n t , and h i s a t t o r n e y :

"THE COURT: And i t i s o f c o u r s e u n d e r s t o o d a t
t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e you w i s h t o e n t e r a change
of p l e a i n t h i s c a s e ; i s t h a t c o r r e c t ?

"MR. BARRON: Y e s , y o u r Honor. M r . Huttinger
would a s k l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w h i s p l e a o f Not
G u i l t y t o D e l i b e r a t e Homicide.

"THE COURT: You u n d e r s t a n d what a p l e a o f g u i l t y
e n t a i l s i n t h i s m a t t e r , d o you n o t , Fir. H u t t i n g e r ?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes; I do.

"THE COURT: You u n d e r s t a n d t h a t change o f p l e a ,
you w a i v e y o u r r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t ? You u n d e r -
stand that?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You u n d e r s t a n d t h a t you w a i v e y o u r
r i g h t t o c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t you i n t h i s m a t t e r ?
You u n d e r s t a n d t h a t ?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You w a i v e your r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l ,
you u n d e r s t a n d t h a t ?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You a l s o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t you w a i v e
y o u r r i g h t t o compel a t t e n d a n c e o f w i t n e s s e s t o
a p p e a r and t e s t i f y on y o u r b e h a l f ; you u n d e r s t a n d
that?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You u n d e r s t a n d t h e p e n a l t y f o r D e -
l i b e r a t e Homicide i n t h e S t a t e o f Yontana i s
i m p r i s o n m e n t i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , Deer
Lodge, f o r a term n o t t o e x c e e d o n e hundred y e a r s ;
you u n d e r s t a n d t h a t ?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes."
 I n w i t h d r a w i n g h i s p l e a of n o t g u i l t y , I b e l i e v e t h e

o n l y p l e a t h a t c a n be considered under t h e s e circumstances

i s t h a t h e i s e n t e r i n g a p l e a of g u i l t y . H e s t a t e d he

u n d e r s t o o d w a i v i n g h i s r i g h t s and t h e s e n t e n c e t o b e imposed

and s o t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h e p l e a b a r g a i n -

i n g i n d r o p p i n g t h e a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g c h a r g e , which

c o u l d have r e s u l t e d i n a d e a t h p e n a l t y i f d e f e n d a n t had

been c o n v i c t e d o f b o t h c h a r g e s . Under t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r

c i r c u m s t a n c e s , I would a f f i r m t h e judgment and s e n t e n c e .