No. 14892
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1980
I N THE MATTER O STEVEN D A E HARDY,
F U N
Petitioner,
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING;
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For P e t i t i o n e r :
M i c h a e l J. Whalen, B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondent :
Hon. 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
H a r o l d H a n s e r , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted on B r i e f s : J u n e 25, 1980
Decided: AUG 6 - 1380
Filed:
-- - 1 '2
-
' ih:'
Mr. 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 of
t h e Court.
I n August 1974 p e t i t i o n e r w a s c o n v i c t e d of r o b b e r y on
a p l e a of g u i l t y . I n J u l y 1979 p e t i t i o n e r i n s t i t u t e d a n
o r i g i n a l proceeding i n t h i s Court f o r post-conviction r e -
l i e f , s e e k i n g l e a v e t o withdraw h i s p l e a of g u i l t y . This
C o u r t remanded t h e matter t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h d i r e c -
t i o n s t o c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g and t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m e r i t s of
the petition. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a f ter h e a r i n g , d e n i e d
t h e r e q u e s t f o r l e a v e t o withdraw t h e p l e a , and p e t i t i o n e r
appeals.
On J u l y 2, 1974, a Kwik Way s t o r e i n B i l l i n g s , Montana,
w a s robbed. P e t i t i o n e r w a s a r r e s t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g morning.
On J u l y 1 5 , 1974, p e t i t i o n e r a p p e a r e d 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 of n o t g u i l t y b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
On J u l y 31, 1974, p e t i t i o n e r a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t and moved t o change h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y . A t t h a t time
p e t i t i o n e r w a s n o t a d v i s e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e
n a t u r e of t h e c h a r g e , t h e r i g h t s waived by a p l e a of g u i l t y ,
o r p o t e n t i a l punishment. Defense c o u n s e l d i d , however, t e l l
t h e c o u r t t h a t he had a d v i s e d p e t i t i o n e r of t h e p o s s i b l e
maximum p e n a l t y of f o r t y y e a r s i n p r i s o n . The c o u r t a c -
c e p t e d t h e p l e a and s e t s e n t e n c i n g b e f o r e a n o t h e r d i s t r i c t
judge f o r August 1 4 , 1974, which w a s l a t e r c o n t i n u e d t o
August 26.
I n t h e t i m e between a r r a i g n m e n t and s e n t e n c i n g , t h e
s e n t e n c i n g judge, t h e Honorable C h a r l e s Luedke, became aware
o f a l e t t e r w r i t t e n by p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y i n
which p e t i t i o n e r a s s e r t e d h i s innocence. Judge Luedke,
t h e r e f o r e , engaged p e t i t i o n e r i n a n e x t e n d e d d i s c u s s i o n of
t h e n a t u r e of t h e c h a r g e , t h e consequences of h i s p l e a , and
h i s reasons f o r pleading g u i l t y . P e t i t i o n e r admitted being
i n t h e car w i t h t h e r o b b e r s and s h a r i n g t h e p r o c e e d s w i t h
them. H e a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t h e had p r i o r knowledge t h a t t h e
r o b b e r y would t a k e p l a c e . The judge a d v i s e d p e t i t i o n e r t h a t
h i s p l e a c o n s t i t u t e d a w a i v e r of s e v e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
r i g h t s , s u c h a s t h e r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y , r i g h t t o con-
f r o n t and cross-examine w i t n e s s e s , and t h e r i g h t t o remain
silent. The judge informed p e t i t i o n e r t h a t t h e p l e a would
p r o b a b l y r e s u l t i n a s e n t e n c e of c o n f i n e m e n t i n t h e s t a t e
prison. Judge Luedke on two o c c a s i o n s o f f e r e d p e t i t i o n e r
f u r t h e r t i m e t o c o n s i d e r h i s p l e a , which p e t i t i o n e r r e f u s e d .
F i n a l l y , t h e judge a d v i s e d p e t i t i o n e r t h a t h e had t h e r i g h t
t o a j u r y t r i a l and t h a t a j u r y m i g h t f i n d him n o t g u i l t y on
t h e f a c t s before t h e court. P e t i t i o n e r nonetheless refused
t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a .
The s o l e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s whether t h e t r i a l
c o u r t committed e r r o r i n denying p e t i t i o n e r ' s p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n
r e q u e s t t o withdraw h i s p l e a of g u i l t y .
I n S t a t e v. Haynie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 607 P.2d
1128, 1131, 37 St.Rep. 415, 4 1 9 , t h i s C o u r t h e l d :
"A change of p l e a w i l l b e p e r m i t t e d o n l y i f i t
f a i r l y a p p e a r s t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s i g n o r a n t of
h i s r i g h t s and t h e consequences of h i s a c t , o r
h e w a s unduly and i m p r o p e r l y i n f l u e n c e d e i t h e r
by hope o r by f e a r i n making t h e p l e a , o r i f
i t a p p e a r s t h e p l e a w a s e n t e r e d under some
mistake o r misapprehension. S t a t e v. McAllister
( 1 9 3 4 ) , 96 Mont. 348, 353, 30 P.2d 821, 823."
T h i s h a s been t h e l o n g - s t a n d i n g r u l e i n Montana. In
a p p l y i n g i t t o t h e case b e f o r e u s , w e f i n d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n
of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t must b e s u s t a i n e d .
J u d g e Luedke p r o v i d e d p e t i t i o n e r e v e r y o p p o r t u n i t y t o
c o n s i d e r h i s a c t i o n , t h e consequences of t h e p l e a and t h e
r i g h t s he could e x e r c i s e . Looking t o t h e r e c o r d , w e f i n d
t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s v e r y c a r e f u l and e x p l i c i t i n i t s
discussions with p e t i t i o n e r :
" J U D G E LUEDKE: W e l l , M r . Cunningham, a r e you
s a t i s f i e d i n your own mind t h a t your p a r t i c i -
p a t i o n i n t h i s whole t r a n s a c t i o n was s u f f i c i e n t
t h a t you a r e a c t u a l l y g u i l t y , t h a t you d i d t a k e
p a r t i n t h e r o b b e r y by a i d i n g and by a b e t t i n g
o r by a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g , any of them?"
F u r t h e r , t h e judge gave an e x t e n s i v e e x p l a n a t i o n t o
p e t i t i o n e r regarding h i s r i g h t t o a jury t r i a l , h i s r i g h t t o
remain s i l e n t , t h e r i g h t t o cross-examine and t h e r i g h t t o
c o n f r o n t t h e w i t n e s s e s and e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t him.
W e a r e a l s o p e r s u a d e d by t h e f a c t t h a t p e t i t i o n e r was
a s s i s t e d by l e g a l c o u n s e l a t e v e r y p o i n t i n t h e c r i m i n a l
procedure. Although p e t i t i o n e r b a s e s h i s a p p e a l i n p a r t on
t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t h i s p l e a was t h e p r o d u c t of a fundamental
m i s t a k e i n h i s l e g a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g , J u d g e Luedke made a
s p e c i a l e f f o r t t o g u a r a n t e e t h a t p e t i t i o n e r was aware of t h e
consequences of h i s p l e a and t h e fundamental p r i n c i p l e s of
law i n v o l v e d . I n i t s memorandum accompanying t h e o r d e r
denying t h e motion t o withdraw t h e p l e a , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
stated:
"Assuming t h a t t h e c h a r g e a g a i n s t t h e a t t o r n e y
i s more t h a n adumbration, i t i s a p p a r e n t from
t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c l a i m was t h e
v e r y c o n c e r n t h e c o u r t had a t t h e t i m e of sen-
t e n c i n g ; and i s t h e r e a s o n why d e f e n d a n t was
q u e r i e d i n t h e c o n t e x t of ' a i d i n g and a b e t -
t i n g ' ; and why i t was s u g g e s t e d t h a t a j u r y
c o u l d p o s s i b l y f i n d him n o t g u i l t y ; and why h e
was o f f e r e d on more t h a n one o c c a s i o n f u r t h e r
t i m e t o d i s c u s s and c o n s i d e r t h e m a t t e r . It
w a s t h e conclusion of t h e c o u r t a t t h a t t i m e
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t knew what h e was d o i n g and
wanted t o do it. The new h e a r i n g h a s produced
t h e same f a c t u a l p i c t u r e a s was b e f o r e t h e
c o u r t on August 2 6 , 1974."
The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t p e t i t i o n e r was a c c o r d e d e v e r y
consideration b u t declined t o reconsider h i s action.
S i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , t h e t r i a l judge, as f i n d e r of
f a c t , i s as f u l l y e n t i t l e d t o b e l i e v e o r d i s b e l i e v e a d e f e n -
d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n s a s a j u r y would be. S t a t e v. Hilton
(1979) - Mont. , 597 P.2d 1171, 1174, 36 St.Rep. 1314,
1319. In light of petitioner's continual insistence on a
guilty plea and the evidence against him, we find a completely
adequate basis for the District Court's factual conclusions.
From petitioner's own testimony there is sufficient admis-
sion to warrant the court's decision: "The only reason I
have for participating in this crime is I needed money to
get to Texas."
Our view of the applicable law in this case is supported
by several of our recent decisions. In re Brown (1980), -
Mont. , 605 P.2d 185, 37 St.Rep. 65; State v. Haynie,
supra; State v. Doty (1977), 173 Mont. 233, 566 P.2d 1388;
and State v. Griffin (1975), 167 Mont. 11, 535 P.2d 498.
The importance of these decisions, as they apply to the
case at bar, is that it is the sole province of the trial
court to determine whether a motion to withdraw a guilty
plea should be granted. The abuse of discretion required to
reverse the lower court is not present in this case.
Af firmed .
We concur:
( \
f
'\\LA-
/
/'
F&
Justices
- "Ly
I