In Re McNair

No. 80-77

I N THE SUPrnMF, COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F

1980

I N RE WILLIAM E. McNAIR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING :

Counsel of Record:

For P e t i t i o n e r :

W i l l i a m E . McNair, P r o S e , Deer Lodge, Montana

For Respondent :

Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana
3 . F r e d Bourdeau, County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Michael G. B a r e r , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , Great F a l l s ,
Montana

S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A p r i l 1 5 , 1980

Decided : uu6 2 5 1880
-
4k.t : 1- t0 " I h I

Filed:
M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e
Court.

W i l l i a m M c N a i r p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t i n an o r i g i n a l p r o -

ceeding t o vacate, set aside, o r c o r r e c t a s e n t e n c e imposed upon

him by the D i s t r i c t Court, Cascade County. He b r o u g h t h i s p e t i -

t i o n p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 46-21-101, e t seq., MCA, alleging that

h e d i d n o t 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 e n t e r a g u i l t y p l e a , and

t h a t he was d e n i e d e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l b e c a u s e c o u n -

s e l d i d not discuss w i t h him t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f the defense o f

mental d e f e c t o r disease. We f i n d t h a t u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h i s

case, p e t i t i o n e r i s not e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f .

On J u n e 23, 1971, p e t i t i o n e r was a r r e s t e d i n c o n n e c t i o n

w i t h a r o b b e r y o f n a r c o t i c s f r o m Osco D r u g i n G r e a t Fa1 l s ,

Montana. A t the time of the arrest, p e t i t i o n e r was u n c o n s c i o u s

a s a r e s u l t of a drug overdose, and was s u b s e q u e n t l y

hospitalized. On J u l y 2 , 1971, p e t i t i o n e r appeared i n c o u r t

w i t h o u t counsel. At t h a t time, c o u n s e l was a p p o i n t e d a n d p e t i -

t i o n e r was o r d e r e d t r a n s f e r r e d 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 psychological evaluation. The e v a l u a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t p e t i -

t i o n e r was c o m p e t e n t t o a s s i s t and p a r t i c i p a t e i n h i s own

defense.

With counsel present, p e t i t i o n e r pleaded g u i l t y t o t h e

c h a r g e s on S e p t e m b e r 1 5 , 1 9 7 1 . Pursuant t o a recommendation by

t h e county attorney, he was s e n t e n c e d t o t w o y e a r s i n Warm

Springs f o r drug treatment, w i t h the remainder of h i s sentence t o

be served i n Deer Lodge S t a t e P r i s o n .

I n February, 1 9 8 0 , 8 1 h y e a r s a f t e r s e n t e n c i ng, petitioner

b r o u g h t t h i s m o t i o n b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e 1 ie f .

F o r purposes o f t h i s p e t i t i o n , we w i l l a d d r e s s t w o i s s u e s :

( 1 ) Does t h e d o c t r i n e o f l a c h e s a p p l y so a s t o p r e v e n t a

defendant from chal l e n g i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f h i s sentence, pursuant

t o s e c t i o n 46-21-101, MCA?

( 2 ) Under t h e circumstances o f t h i s case, i s petitioner

e n t i t l e d t o any p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f ?

The Cascade C o u n t y A t t o r n e y u r g e s t h i s C o u r t t o d i s m i s s
t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t i t i s m e r i t l e s s and

f o r t h e reason t h a t h i s attempt t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y plea i s

not timely. He a r g u e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t i s barred, by laches, from

r a i s i n g t h e s e i s s u e s 81k y e a r s a f t e r he was s e n t e n c e d . We f i n d

t h a t defendant i s not b a r r e d from r a i s i n g t h e issues by m o t i o n t o

t h i s Court.

S e c t i o n 46-21-102, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t "[a] petition for

. . . relief may be f i l e d a t a n y t i m e a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n . " This

C o u r t has n o t p r e v i o u s l y l o o k e d a t t h i s s e c t i o n b u t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e

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

Post-Conviction Procedure Act d i c t a t e s the conclusion t h a t t h e r e

i s no t i m e l i m i t i n w h i c h t o i n i t i a t e an a c t i o n .

The p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n h e a r i n g s t a t u t e s a r e an a t t e m p t by t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e t o c o n s o l i d a t e a1 1 of t h e common-law s t a t u t o r y reme-

d i e s n o r m a l l y a v a i l a b l e t o chal lenge a sentence. Montana's act

i s b a s e d i n p a r t o n t h e I l l i n o i s Code o f Criminal Procedure, and

i n p a r t on t h e U n i f o r m A c t , b u t t h e M o n t a n a Code i s s i l e n t as t o

t h e source o f t h e s e c t i o n i n question. T h e I l l i n o i s Code o f

Criminal Procedure sets f o r t h a 20-year statute of limitations

for i n i t i a t i n g an a c t i o n , u n l e s s p e t i t i o n e r a1 l e g e s f a c t s s h o w i n g

t h a t t h e d e l a y i s n o t due t o h i s c u l p a b l e n e g l i g e n c e . See 3 8 1 1 1 .

Code o f C r i m . P r o c . 5 122-1. Montana d i d n o t choose t o adopt t h i s

s e c t i o n , b u t d i d enact a s t a t u t e w i t h language s i m i l a r t o s e c t i o n

1 o f t h e 1 9 5 5 U n i f o r m P o s t - C o n v i c t i o n P r o c e d u r e A c t and t h e

federal a c t , 2 8 U.S.C. 2255. T h e C o m m i s s i o n comments t o t h e

U n i f o r m A c t i n d i c a t e t h a t a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s f o r f i l i n g was

considered, but rejected, because o f a q u e s t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n -

ality. And i n c o n s i d e r i n g a c l a i m b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t t h a t a p e t i -

t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U.S.C. 2 2 5 5 was n o t f i l e d a t t h e p r o p e r t i m e , the

U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t i n H e f l i n v. United States (1959),

3 5 8 U.S. 415, 420, 79 S . C t . 451, 454, 3 L.Ed.2d 407, 411

( S t e w a r t J., concurring), noted t h a t under t h e federal statute, a

s e n t e n c e c o u l d be a t t a c k e d o n l y b y a p r i s o n e r p r e s e n t l y s e r v i n g ,

b u t t h a t t h e s e c t i o n comparable t o s e c t i o n 46-21-102, MCA, "means
that, as i n h a b e a s c o r p u s , t h e r e i s no s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , no

res judicata, and t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f l a c h e s i s i n a p p l i c a b l e . "

See a l s o , ~ o n n g r s v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1 9 7 0 ) , 4 3 1 F.2d 1207; C. Torcia,

W h a r t o n ' s C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e $ 648 ( 1 2 t h ed. 1976).

I n accord w i t h these a u t h o r i t i e s , we f i n d t h a t t h e M o n t a n a

l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t i n t e n d t o i m p o s e an a b s o l u t e t i m e c o n s t r a i n t

o n t h e f i l i n g o f an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f .

Our f i n d i n g t h a t p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d t o f i l e h i s p e t i t i o n

a t any t i m e does n o t , however, n e c e s s i t a t e a f i n d i n g t h a t he i s

e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e l i e f sought. Numerous f e d e r a l c o u r t s have con-

sidered t h e problem o f delay, i n $2255 m o t i o n s , w i t h many c o u r t s

f i n d i n g t h a t d e l a y can have a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on t h e m o v a n t :

" W h i l e m o t i o n s u n d e r 28 U S C $ 2 2 5 5 may be made a t
a n y t i m e , t h e l a p s e o f t i m e a f f e c t s t h e good
f a i t h and c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e m o v i n g p a r t y . "
A i k e n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s (M.D. N.Car. 1 9 6 1 ) , 1 9 1
F.Supp. 4 3 , 5 0 , a f f ' d 2 9 6 F.2d 6 0 4 ( 4 t h C i r .
1961). See a l s o R a i n e s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 4 t h
C i r . 1 9 7 0 ) , 4 2 3 F.2d 5 2 6 , 5 3 1 .

I n a c a s e s u c h as t h e o n e b e f o r e u s , we f i n d t h a t t h e 81/2

year delay c e r t a i n l y raises questions o f defendant's c r e d i b i l i t y in

asserting h i s claims. B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d s , f i l e s and a f f i d a v i t s p r e -

s e n t e d t o us, we d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n . I n d o i n g so, we find the

view o f the D i s t r i c t Court, D i s t r i c t o f Columbia, persuasive:

" O b v i o u s l y , t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f on a m o t i o n t o
v a c a t e a s e n t e n c e u n d e r 28 U.S.C. $ 2 2 5 5 i s on
t h e moving p a r t y , because t h e r e i s a p r e s u m p t i o n
o f regularity of the conviction. The b u r d e n i s
p a r t i c u l a r l y h e a v y i f t h e i s s u e i s one o f f a c t
and a l o n g t i m e has e l a p s e d s i n c e t h e t r i a l o f
t h e case. While n e i t h e r the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a -
t i o n s n o r l a c h e s can b a r t h e a s s e r t i o n o f a
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t , n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e passage
o f t i m e may make i t i m p r a c t i c a b l e t o r e t r y a c a s e
i f t h e m o t i o n i s g r a n t e d and a new t r i a l i s
ordered. No d o u b t , a t t i m e s s u c h a m o t i o n i s a
p r o d u c t o f an a f t e r t h o u g h t . L o n g d e l a y may
r a i s e a q u e s t i o n o f good f a i t h . " U n i t e d S t a t e s
v . B o s t i c (D. D.C. 1 9 6 2 ) , 2 0 6 F.Supp. 8 5 5 ,
856-57.

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p r o b l e m o f good f a i t h , we n o t e t h a t

l o n g d e l a y may p r o v e t o be h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l i f the State i s

f o r c e d t o t r y a case 81k y e a r s l a t e r . The p r a c t i c a l p r o b l e m s

o f dying witnesses, f a d i n g memories, and c h a n g i n g

g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c i a l s demand t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r r e l i e f m u s t
be made p r o m p t l y . See Desmond v. United States (1st C i r . 1 9 6 4 ) , 3 3 3 F.2d

378, 381. I n P a c e l l i v. United States (2nd C i r . 1978), 5 8 8 F.2d

360, 365, cert.denied, 4 4 1 U.S. 908, 99 S . C t . 2001, 6 0 L.Ed.2d

378 (1979), the court c i t e d Rule 9(a) o f the Rules Governing

S e c t i o n 2255 P r o c e e d i n g s f o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t s :

" A m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f made p u r s u a n t t o t h e s e
r u l e s may be d i s m i s s e d i f i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e
government has been p r e j u d i c e d i n i t s a b i l i t y t o
respond t o t h e motion by delay i n i t s f i l i n g
u n l e s s t h e m o v a n t shows t h a t i t i s b a s e d o n
g r o u n d s o f w h i c h he c o u l d n o t h a v e h a d k n o w l e d g e
by the exercise of reasonable d i l i g e n c e before
t h e circumstances p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e government
occurred."

That c o u r t noted t h a t a judge i s c l e a r l y e n t i t l e d t o take

d e l a y s i n t o a c c o u n t i n r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f .

T h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n s o f e r r o r on w h i c h he b a s e s

h i s p e t i t i o n a l l a r e p r e m i s e d o n t h e i n v o l u n t a r y and u n i n t e l l i g e n t

nature o f h i s g u i l t y plea. He a s s e r t s t h a t he h a d i n c o m p e t e n t

c o u n s e l who d i d n o t a d v i s e h i m o f t h e p e n a l t i e s i n v o l v e d , and h e

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

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

o f mental d e f e c t o r disease. He q u e s t i o n s h i s c o m p e t e n c e t o

stand t r i a l .

We n o t e a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t p e t i t i o n e r was s e n t t o Warm

Springs for an e v a l u a t i o n b y t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e . That

evaluation, conducted by Dr. M. F. Gracia, f o u n d d e f e n d a n t "com-

p e t e n t and a b l e t o a s s i s t and p a r t i c i p a t e i n h i s own d e f e n s e , "

a l t h o u g h n o t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s l o n g h i s t o r y o f d r u g and a l c o h o l

abuse. P r i o r t o t h i s evaluation, defendant conversed b r i e f y w i t h

h i s appointed counsel , and f o l l o w i n g h i s r e l e a s e f r o m Warm
Springs, d e f e n d a n t c o n s u l t e d w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y t h r e e more t i m e s

p r i o r t o t h e e n t r y o f t h e g u i l t y plea. On S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 7 1 ,

d e f e n d a n t a n d h i s c o u n s e l a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e H o n o r a b l e R. J.

Nelson. T h e r e c o r d shows t h a t a t t h a t t i m e , the defendant

received, a n d was r e a d , a c o p y o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e

D i s t r i c t Judge informed him o f h i s r i g h t t o t a k e a t l e a s t 24

h o u r s more b e f o r e p l e a d i n g i n o r d e r t o a d e q u a t e l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e
charges. Defendant's counsel requested the continuance, as t h e

r e c o r d shows:

"MR. OVERFELT: Your Honor, i n o r d e r t h a t t h e
d e f e n d a n t may be f u l l y a p p r i s e d o f t h e n a t u r e o f
t h e c h a r g e a g a i n s t h i m and t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f
t h a t p a r t i c u l a r c h a r g e , we r e q u e s t t h e c o u r t a t
t h i s t i m e f o r an a d d i t i o n a l t w e n t y - f o u r h o u r s ,
i n which t o e n t e r t h e plea."

Counsel's records, w h i c h were p r e s e n t e d t o us by a f f i d a v i t

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

p l e a b a r g a i n i f an a r r a n g e m e n t c o u l d be w o r k e d o u t t o g e t h i m

i n t o a d r u g t r e a t m e n t program. It appears from these same

records t h a t counsel had done i n i t i a l r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e p o s s i b l e

d e f e n s e s o f d r u g and a l c o h o l a d d i c t i o n o r m e n t a l defect, and h a d

i n d i c a t e d t o d e f e n d a n t a p o o r chance f o r h i m t o use such a

defense. On t h i s b a s i s , t h e d e c i s i o n was r e a c h e d v o l u n t a r i l y b y

defendant t o plead g u i l t y .

A p l e a was n o t e n t e r e d b y d e f e n d a n t u n t i l t h e f o l l o w i n g

day. A t t h a t time t h e judge i n q u i r e d i n t o t h e voluntary nature

o f the plea. The r e c o r d p r o v i d e s i n p a r t :

"THE COURT: W e l l , M r . McNair, b e f o r e I c a n
accept a G u i l t y plea, I must a s c e r t a i n t h a t i t ' s
v o l u n t a r i l y made. I n o t h e r words, t h a t y o u ' r e
n o t b e i n g c o e r c e d o r f o r c e d t o make t h i s p l e a .

"THE DEFENDANT: No, y o u r H o n o r , I ' m not being
forced.

"THE COURT: A l l r i g h t , and y o u u n d e r s t a n d t h a t
I d o n ' t c a r e w h a t a n y o n e s a i d t o y o u , as a C o u r t
I c a n n o t make y o u and w i l l n o t make y o u a n y p r o -
m i s e s as t o s e n t e n c e ?

"THE DEFENDANT: I r e a l i z e this."

Following a presentence investigation, d e f e n d a n t was s e n -

t e n c e d on September 29, 1971, w i t h the f i r s t p a r t o f t h e sentence

t o be s e r v e d a t Warm S p r i n g s f o r d r u g t r e a t m e n t . Defendant's

counsel i n d i c a t e s b y a f f i d a v i t t h a t t h i s s e n t e n c i n g was p u r s u a n t

t o a recommendation o f t h e county a t t o r n e y , b a s e d on p l e a n e g o -

t i a t i o n s between counsel and t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y .

As t h e r e c o r d s h o w s , defendant h a s w a i t e d 81b y e a r s b e f o r e

m a k i n g an a t t e m p t t o w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a . T h i s C o u r t has

p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d t h a t where a D i s t r i c t C o u r t has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t
a p l e a was v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d , withdrawal of t h a t plea i s a

matter within the discretion of the court. A long time interval

b e f o r e m o v i n g t o w i t h d r a w t h e p l e a makes t h e s i t u a t i o n l e s s

f a v o r a b l e t o t h e defendant. I n t h e c a s e o f S t a t e v. Lewis

(19781, Mont. , 5 8 2 P.2d 346, 3 5 2 , 3 5 St.Rep. 1089, 1096,
t h i s C o u r t a d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e o f l a c h e s as i t a p p l i e s t o t h e

withdrawal o f a g u i l t y plea:

" M o r e o v e r , t h e c l a i m o f l a c h e s i s good a g a i n s t
t h e d e f e n d a n t h e r e because i t i s q u i t e p r o b a b l e
t h e r e c o r d s upon w h i c h t h e p l e a s o f g u i l t y were
e n t e r e d a r e now m i s s i n g o r t h e i r w h e r e a b o u t s
u n k n o w n and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s w o u l d
o f c o u r s e be a q u e s t i o n . See S t a t e v. S a t t l e r
(19761, Mont. , 5 4 9 P.2d 1 0 8 0 , 3 3
St.Rep. 475."

See a l s o , S t a t e v. Nance ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 120 Mont. 152, 1 8 4 P.2d 554;

S t a t e v. S a t t l e r (1976), 170 Mont. 35, 5 4 9 P.2d 1080.

We a r e f a c e d w i t h t h a t p r o b l e m h e r e . We h a v e b e f o r e u s

a1 l e g a t i o n s o f i n c o m p e t e n t c o u n s e l l e a d i n g t o a n i n v a l i d g u i l t y

plea. I t i s h a r d t o i m a g i n e t h a t t h i s d e f e n d a n t was u n a b l e t o

d e t e r m i n e f o r 8 1 h y e a r s t h a t he d i d n o t e n t e r a v o l u n t a r y and

i n t e l l i g e n t g u i l t y plea. He a1 l e g e s o n e u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t t o

work w i t h t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Montana D e f e n d e r P r o j e c t i n 1974, at

a t i m e a f t e r he h a d s e r v e d h i s s e n t e n c e a n d was i n D e e r L o d g e f o r

a l a t e r conviction. The r e c o r d does n o t s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s c l a i m ,

n o r d o e s i t a p p e a r t h a t he made a n y o t h e r a t t e m p t s f o r f i v e m o r e

years, u n t i l f i l i n g t h i s p e t i t i o n i n 1979.

T h i s C o u r t n o t e d i n S t a t e v. Lewis, supra, that "Lilt has

b e c o m e common p l a c e i n r e c e n t t i m e s f o r d e f e n d a n t s s e e k i n g p o s t

c o n v i c t i o n r e 1 ie f t o a s s a i l t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n b y c o u n s e l

d u r i n g c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s as i n a d e q u a t e o r d e f i c i e n t . " We

r e m a r k e d t h e r e and we r e i t e r a t e :

" ... Such an a t t a c k h o w e v e r m u s t be g r o u n d e d
upon f a c t s w h i c h appear i n o r a r e e a s i l y deduced
f r o m t h e r e c o r d a n d w h i c h go b e y o n d t h e m e r e
c o n c l u s o r y a1 l e g a t i o n s i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
affidavit. T h e r e m u s t be a s h o w i n g o f a c t u a l
i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s on t h e p a r t o f c o u n s e l .
D i g i a l l o n a r d o v. B e t z e r ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 3 M o n t . 1 0 4 ,
 W h a v e b e f o r e u s t h e c o u r t f i l e s and r e c o r d s and t h e
e

a f f i d a v i t s o f b o t h p e t i t i o n e r and p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o u n s e l . Based on

t h e s e r e c o r d s we h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t p e t i t i o n e r ' s m o t i o n s h o u l d

be d e n i e d w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g . S e c t i o n 46-21-201, MCA. The

p e t i t i o n e r h a s r a i s e d n o i s s u e s w h i c h we w o u l d e x p e c t t o r e q u i r e

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

now--8lb y e a r s a f t e r t h e p l e a and s e n t e n c i n g . He h a s made n o

s h o w i n g i n h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t he h a s a n y a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o
o r t h a t he
p u t b e f o r e t h e C o u r t / c a n p r o d u c e any w i t n e s s e s w i t h d i f f e r e n t

r e c o l l e c t i o n s o r a n y a d d i t i o n a l r e c o r d s w h i c h may h a v e b e e n

l y i n g dormant f o r a l l t h i s time. I n v i e w i n g a1 1 t h e

circumstances, we a r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t p e t i t i o n e r was a d e q u a t e l y

r e p r e s e n t e d i n 1 9 7 1 a n d t h a t he was f u l l y c o m p e t e n t t o e n t e r a

v o l u n t a r y and i n t e l l i g e n t g u i l t y p l e a . It i s unnecessary t o

reopen t h e case.

The p e t i t i o n i s d e n i e d .

Chief Justice

/. ... /'

We c d n c u r :