Spurlock v. Crist

No. 14701

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA
F

1980

JAMES C. SPURLOCK,

Petitioner,

-vs-

ROGER W. CRIST, Warden,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

C o u n s e l o f Record :

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

F r e d Van V a l k e ~ . k u r g , M i s s o u l a , 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
R o b e r t Deschamps, 111, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a ,
Montana

Submitted: February 28, 1980

Decided: J#L
9 198D
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

P e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of habeas c o r p u s

i n t h i s C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 1979. This Court ordered t h e

w r i t h e a r d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t , County o f M i s s o u l a , and t h e Honorable R o b e r t M.

H o l t e r assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . A

h e a r i n g was h e l d on J u n e 6 , 1979, and J u l y 1 7 , 1979. Find-

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

f i l e d O c t o b e r 30, 1979. These f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s have

been a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t , and t h e m a t t e r h a s been a c c e p t e d

f o r d e c i s i o n on b r i e f s .

P e t i t i o n e r and a companion, one Leonard Doney, w e r e

a r r e s t e d on J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1972, e i g h t y e a r s ago, and c h a r g e d

w i t h f o u r c o u n t s o f r o b b e r y , a l l of which w e r e a l l e g e d l y

committed d u r i n g t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s of J a n u a r y 1 8 ,

1972. A f t e r a high-speed c h a s e , p e t i t i o n e r w a s a r r e s t e d

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

p o l i c e c a r , was i d e n t i f i e d by one of t h e v i c t i m s .

A f t e r t r i a l and c o n v i c t i o n , t h e c o n v i c t i o n w a s a p p e a l e d

t o t h i s C o u r t and s u b m i t t e d November 30, 1972, a f t e r o r a l

argument. On F e b r u a r y 20, 1973, a unanimous C o u r t a f f i r m e d

t h e judgment and c o n v i c t i o n . S t a t e v. Spurlock (1973), 161

Mont. 388, 506 P.2d 842. Following are some e x c e r p t s of

p r e t r i a l f a c t s from t h e p r i o r o p i n i o n of t h i s Court:

"The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t on J a n u a r y 28, 1972,
an Information w a s f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
c h a r g i n g e a c h d e f e n d a n t w i t h f o u r c o u n t s of
r o b b e r y upon f o u r M i s s o u l a f i l l i n g s t a t i o n s
committed on J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1972. D . R. Matthews,
Esq., Missoula P u b l i c Defender, w a s a p p o i n t e d
by t h e c o u r t a s c o u n s e l and he r e p r e s e n t e d b o t h
d e f e n d a n t s i n a l l s t a g e s of p r e t r i a l proceed-
ings. Both d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d p l e a s of n o t
g u i l t y and t r i a l was s e t f o r May 4 , 1972. B a i l
was f i x e d i n t h e amount of $15,000 ( l a t e r re-
duced t o $12,500) f o r d e f e n d a n t S p u r l o c k and i n
t h e amount of $12,500 f o r d e f e n d a n t Doney. N e i -
t h e r defendant w a s a b l e t o p o s t b a i l .
 "Defendant Doney r e q u e s t e d a p s y c h i a t r i c examina-
t i o n and w a s a d m i t t e d t o t h e s t a t e h o s p i t a l a t
W a r m S p r i n g s on F e b r u a r y 2 , 1972, r e m a i n i n g
t h e r e a b o u t t h i r t y d a y s . An e x a m i n a t i o n was
performed and a r e p o r t s u b m i t t e d t o t h e c o u r t .

"On March 1 3 , 1972, d e f e n d a n t S p u r l o c k f i l e d a n
a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of t r i a l judge
Hon. E m m e t G l o r e , which was g r a n t e d . The c a u s e
was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e c o u r t of Hon. E . Gardner
Brownlee.

"On A p r i l 5, 1972, d e f e n d a n t S p u r l o c k s u b m i t t e d
m o t i o n s f o r a p s y c h i a t r i c e x a m i n a t i o n by a l o -
c a l p s y c h i a t r i s t and f o r s e p a r a t e c o u n s e l . Both
motions w e r e d e n i e d . Subsequent t e s t i m o n y by
S p u r l o c k ' s w i f e i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had been t o
Warm S p r i n g s f o r t r e a t m e n t and/or e x a m i n a t i o n
on some p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n and t h a t he d i d n o t
wish t o r e t u r n t h e r e .

"On A p r i l 6, 1972, d e f e n d a n t Doney p e t i t i o n e d
I t h e c o u r t p r o se f o r a w r i t of h a b e a s c o r p u s
based on v i o l a t i o n of h i s r i g h t s a t a p r e l i m i -
n a r y e x a m i n a t i o n f o r p r o b a b l e c a u s e . Judge
J a c k L. Green, s i t t i n g f o r Judge E . Gardner
Brownlee, h e a r d t h e p e t i t i o n on A p r i l 6, 1972,
w i t h p e t i t i o n e r p r e s e n t i n c o u r t and r e p r e s e n t e d
by p u b l i c d e f e n d e r D . R. Matthews, h i s a t t o r n e y .
A f t e r argument t h e w r i t was d e n i e d .

"On May 3 , 1972, one day p r e c e d i n g t h e t r i a l
d a t e , t h e defendants through t h e i r appointed
c o u n s e l , D. R. Matthews, e n t e r e d f o u r motions
requesting:

"1. Withdrawal of c o u r t a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l .

" 2. Separate trials.

"3. Separate counsel.

"4. A Continuance.

"The r e q u e s t e d c o n t i n u a n c e w a s f o r t h e c l a i m e d
p u r p o s e of a l l o w i n g t h e i r c o u n s e l t i m e t o p r e -
p a r e t h e i r d e f e n s e , and t o o b t a i n a p s y c h i a t r i c
e v a l u a t i o n f o r defendant Spurlock. [Emphasis
supplied.]

"The c o u r t d e n i e d a l l f o u r m o t i o n s . However,
p r i o r t o t r i a l on May 4 , 1972, t h e motion f o r
w i t h d r a w a l of c o u n s e l was g r a n t e d and R o b e r t J .
Campbell, Esq. w a s e n t e r e d a s c o u n s e l . In
g r a n t i n g t h i s motion, t h e c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y
q u e s t i o n e d b o t h d e f e n d a n t s a f t e r making them
aware t h a t t h e i r o t h e r motions ( i n c l u d i n g t h e
motion f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e ) would n o t be g r a n t e d ,
a s t o whether t h e y would s t i l l p r e f e r t o have
R o b e r t J . Campbell s u b s t i t u t e d a s c o u n s e l r e -
p l a c i n g D. R. Matthews. Both d e f e n d a n t s s t a t e d
 they so preferred. The c o u r t t h e n s u g g e s t e d
t h a t Matthews remain t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e de-
f e n s e and r e q u e s t e d b o t h d e f e n d a n t s ' p e r m i s s i o n
b e f o r e M r . Matthews w a s p e r m i t t e d t o l e a v e .
Both d e f e n d a n t s gave t h a t p e r m i s s i o n .

" A t t h e t i m e t h e c o u r t was c o n s i d e r i n g t h e re-
q u e s t f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n o f c o u n s e l , M r . Matthews
s t a t e d : 'They have t o l d me a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g .
They w i l l n o t c o n f i d e i n m e , t h e r e h a s been no
communication a t a l l . '

" I n t h e i r appeal b r i e f , defendants s t a t e d ' P r i o r
t o t r i a l t h e d e f e n d a n t s remained i n t h e Missoula
County j a i l and s o u g h t p r i v a t e c o u n s e l a s b e s t
they could.' The r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h i s
statement. I t does n o t d i s c l o s e t h a t defendants
o r anyone a c t i n g i n t h e i r b e h a l f , c o n t a c t e d o r
w e r e r e f u s e d by any a t t o r n e y p r i o r t o t h e i r
c o n t a c t i n g M r . Campbell, who d i d t a k e t h e i r
case. I t does n o t d i s c l o s e t h a t defendants
w e r e r e f u s e d p e r m i s s i o n t o c o n t a c t any a t t o r n e y
w h i l e t h e y were i n j a i l . I t does d i s c l o s e t h a t
M r . Campbell was c o n t a c t e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e
by M r s . S p u r l o c k a t 4:15 p.m. on May 3, 1972,
o v e r t h r e e months a f t e r t h e a r r a i g n m e n t of de-
f e n d a n t s and on t h e a f t e r n o o n b e f o r e t h e t r i a l
date." S t a t e v. S p u r l o c k , s u p r a , 1 6 1 Mont.
a t 389-391, 506 P.2d a t 842-843.

The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s have been p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t

f o r review:

1. Whether t h e r e q u i r e m e n t of j o i n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of

p e t i t i o n e r and a c o d e f e n d a n t o v e r t i m e l y o b j e c t i o n neces-

s i t a t e s a r e v e r s a l of p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n .

2. Whether p e t i t i o n e r w a s 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

of c o u n s e l p r i o r t o t r i a l and, i f s o , whether such d e n i a l

a f f e c t e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s due p r o c e s s r i g h t s s o a s t o n e c e s s i t a t e

a r e v e r s a l of h i s c o n v i c t i o n .

3. Whether p e t i t i o n e r w a s s u b j e c t e d t o a n impermis-

s i b l e showup s u b s e q u e n t t o h i s a r r e s t .

4. Whether p e t i t i o n e r was g i v e n i n a d e q u a t e n o t i c e of

t r i a l , w a s i m p r o p e r l y r e q u i r e d t o go t o t r i a l j o i n t l y w i t h

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

h i s t r i a l s o a s t o n e c e s s i t a t e a r e v e r s a l of h i s c o n v i c t i o n .

5. Whether t h e f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e p e t i t i o n e r w i t h a
t r a n s c r i p t of p r o c e e d i n g s and f a i l u r e of t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r

t o f i l e h i s n o t e s w i t h t h e c l e r k of c o u r t v i o l a t e p e t i t i -

t i o n e r ' s r i g h t t o due p r o c e s s s o a s t o n e c e s s i t a t e a r e v e r s a l

of h i s c o n v i c t i o n .

6. Whether t h e f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e p e t i t i o n e r w i t h a n

o p p o r t u n i t y t o examine t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t and c r o s s -

examine any w i t n e s s e s w i t h r e s p e c t t h e r e t o n e c e s s i t a t e s t h e

v a c a t i o n of p e t i t i o n e r ' s s e n t e n c e and removal f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g .

I s s u e s 1, 2 and 4 were p r e v i o u s l y l i t i g a t e d i n t h i s

C o u r t on t h e argued a p p e a l , S t a t e v . S p u r l o c k , s u p r a , and

w i l l n o t be reviewed a second t i m e on a p p e a l .

I s s u e 3 concerns t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n t h e p o l i c e

v e h i c l e on t h e n i g h t of t h e crime. C o u r t s have u n i v e r s a l l y

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

c o n f r o n t a t i o n w a s conducted s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e commission of

t h e crime. I n S t o v a l l v. Denno ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 388 U.S. 293, 87

S.Ct. 1967, 1 8 L.Ed.2d 1199, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t

approved a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n showup where t h e d e f e n d a n t was

b r o u g h t t o t h e v i c t i m ' s h o s p i t a l room s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e

crime was committed. S i m i l a r l y , where t h e d e f e n d a n t was

immediately r e t u r n e d t o t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e c r i m e and p l a c e d

i n a p a t r o l wagon and w h i l e h e w a s i n s i d e t h e v e h i c l e h e was

viewed by t h e complaining w i t n e s s e s , one of whom s p e c i f i c a l l y

i d e n t i f i e d him a s h e r a t t a c k e r , t h e c o u r t h e l d i n Bates v .

U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 132 App.D.C. 36, 405 F.2d 1104, t h a t

t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , which was i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e
t r i a l , w a s n o t t h e r e s u l t of an unnecessarily suggestive

c o n f r o n t a t i o n and d i d n o t , t h e r e f o r e , deny him due p r o c e s s .

S e e a l s o 39 A.L.R.3d 791.
I n r e g a r d t o I s s u e 5, t h e m a t t e r of a f r e e t r a n s c r i p t ,

p e t i t i o n e r ' s argument on t h i s p o i n t seems t o be t h a t h e w a s
d e n i e d a t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t and hence, due p r o c e s s , s i n c e t h e

c o u r t r e p o r t e r ' s n o t e s were k e p t w i t h t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r

r a t h e r t h a n t h e c l e r k of c o u r t . I n f a c t , t h e r e a s o n he w a s

denied a t r a n s c r i p t i s set o u t i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court's

F i n d i n g of F a c t No. I1 a s f o l l o w s :

". . . U n t i l t h e f i l i n g of t h i s p e t i t i o n , t h e
p e t i t i o n e r had a c t e d i n c o n c e r t w i t h h i s code-
f e n d a n t , Leonard E. Doney, i n a t t e m p t i n g t o g e t
a free transcript, but u n t i l the present peti-
t i o n , n e i t h e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r n o r Doney had a l -
l e g e d a n y t h i n g t o w a r r a n t moving any c o u r t ' s
d i s c r e t i o n t o order a f r e e t r a n s c r i p t prepared,
a s e v i d e n c e d by a n o r d e r of Judge Brownlee
d a t e d October 11, 1973, and f i l e d i n t h i s
c a u s e and a n o r d e r by Judge R u s s e l l Smith
d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1979, and e n t e r e d i n F e d e r a l
D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e D i s t r i c t of Montana,
c a u s e no. 2392."

Whatever t h e l e g a l i t y o r wisdom of c o u r t r e p o r t e r s

k e e p i n g t h e i r n o t e s , t h a t p r a c t i c e d i d n o t deny p e t i t i o n e r a

t r a n s c r i p t , nor d o e s t h e matter c o n s t i t u t e any c o n s t i t u -

t i o n a l i s s u e mandating any r e l i e f f o r p e t i t i o n e r .

I s s u e 6 claims e r r o r due t o i r r e g u l a r i t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t

t o p e t i t i o n e r ' s presentence report. P e t i t i o n e r was con-

v i c t e d of f o u r c o u n t s o f r o b b e r y and was s e n t e n c e d under t h e

p r o v i s i o n s o f former s e c t i o n 95-1506, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d i n g

f o r i n c r e a s e d punishment based on p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . He

r e c e i v e d a s e n t e n c e of f i f t y y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e

Prison. P e t i t i o n e r now s t a t e s h e w a s p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e he

c l a i m s h e d i d n o t have a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o examine t h e p r e -

s e n t e n c e r e p o r t p r i o r t o s e n t e n c i n g nor t o cross-examine

witnesses with respect t o t h e report.

The p r i n c i p a l p o i n t i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s i s s u e i s

t h e f a c t t h a t p e t i t i o n e r has not pointed t o a s i n g l e e r r o r

o r ambiguity i n h i s presentence r e p o r t . This Court has

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

g u a r a n t e e a g a i n s t a s e n t e n c e p r e d i c a t e d on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n ,
b u t h e c a n n o t complain i f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n a p r e s e n t e n c e

report is true. S t a t e v. Osborn ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 480, 555

P.2d 509. That i s c l e a r l y t h e case here. Unless p e t i t i o n e r

c a n show something e r r o n e o u s i n t h e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t , he

w i l l n o t be g r a n t e d a r e s e n t e n c i n g .

The f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w of t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t a r e a f f i r m e d and a c c e p t e d ; t h e w r i t of h a b e a s

corpus i s dismissed.
/

& x
% Justice

W e concur:

\
Chief J u s t i c e

Justices