No. 81-07
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
1981
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,
GARY BROWN,
D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from; D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth 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 o f G l a c i e r , The H o n o r a b l e
R. D. McPhillips, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
C h a r l e s M J o s l y n , C h o t e a u , Montana
,
F o r Respondent:
EIon. 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
J a m e s C . N e l s o n , County A t t o r n e y , C u t Bank, Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : May 1, 1 9 8 1
Decided : J.w 1 7 Ig8'
Filed: && 1 7 1 t
9M
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y 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 .
I n December 1979 d e f e n d a n t Gary Brown was c h a r g e d i n
G l a c i e r County D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h t h r e e counts of felony
t h e f t , a l l e g e d t o h a v e b e e n c o m m i t t e d i n C u t Bank, Montana,
on v a r i o u s d a t e s i n November and December 1979. Defendant
entered not g u i l t y pleas i n J a n u a r y 1980. Thereafter, a
pretrial a g r e e m e n t was e n t e r e d i n t o b e t w e e n d e f e n d a n t and
the State. Pursuant to the agreement, d e f e n d a n t was to
p l e a d g u i l t y t o e a c h c o u n t and t h e S t a t e was t o recommend
five-year s e n t e n c e s t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y and t h a t d e f e n d a n t
n o t be c h a r g e d a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r n o r t h a t h e
be d e s i g n a t e d a d a n g e r o u s o f f e n d e r f o r p a r o l e p u r p o s e s . The
pretrial a g r e e m e n t was s i g n e d and f i l e d with the District
C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 6 , 1 9 8 0 .
On F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1980, d e f e n d a n t changed h i s p l e a t o
g u i l t y on e a c h c o u n t . The c o u r t t o o k n o t i c e o f t h e p r e t r i a l
agreement and, after determining that defendant was
knowingly and v o l u n t a r i l y c h a n g i n g h i s p l e a , accepted the
p l e a and o r d e r e d 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 .
On March 5 , 1 9 8 0 , d e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d f o r s e n t e n c i n g .
Following hearing, the court sentenced defendant t o seven
years and designated him a nondangerous offender. In
sentencing defendant, the court acknowledged the pretrial
a g r e e m e n t b u t i n c r e a s e d t h e recommended s e n t e n c e b e c a u s e o f
d e f e n d a n t ' s p a s t h i s t o r y of p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n s , h i s i n a b i l i t y
to learn from past experiences with the law, and his
untruthfulness w i t h the presentence investigator.
Immediately following s e n t e n c i n g , defendant f i l e d a
p e t i t i o n for post-conviction r e l i e f claiming t h a t t h e S t a t e
breached the pretrial agreement and that t h e s e n t e n c e of
s e v e n y e a r s on e a c h c o u n t was i m p r o p e r . The p e t i t i o n was
d e n i e d , and d e f e n d a n t now a p p e a l s .
The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r o u r r e v i e w :
1. Whether the State breached the pretrial
a g r e e m e n t ; and
2. Whether the District Court properly sentenced
d e f e n d a n t on e a c h o f t h e t h r e e c o u n t s o f f e l o n y t h e f t .
It is a widely-recognized principle that when a
g u i l t y p l e a r e s t s i n any s i g n i f i c a n t d e g r e e on a p r o m i s e o r
agreement of the prosecutor, s o t h a t i t c a n be s a i d t o b e
p a r t of t h e inducement o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , such promise must
be f u l f i l l e d . S e e S a n t o b e l l o v . N e w York ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 404 U.S.
257, 92 S . C t . 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427.
Here t h e p r e t r i a l agreement r e q u i r e d the State, in
exchange f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t y p l e a , t o recommend a f i v e -
y e a r s e n t e n c e on e a c h c o u n t t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y . Defendant
maintains that this recommendation was not made. Upon
r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d , w e must d i s a g r e e .
The actual agreement, which included a provision
c o n c e r n i n g t h e S t a t e ' s recommended s e n t e n c e , was f i l e d w i t h
the District Court nearly a month before the sentencing
hearing. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g e t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o c e e d i n g
acknowledged the existence of this agreement and during
i m p o s i t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e made p a r t i c u l a r m e n t i o n
o f t h e S t a t e ' s recommendation:
I1Q . Mr. B r o w n , y o u a r e aware of the
negotiations for a plea here. A. Yes.
"Q. T h e p l e a o f g u i l t y t o t h r e e c o u n t s ? A.
Yes.
"Q. I n e x c h a n g e f o r a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e
County A t t o r n e y t o t h e C o u r t of f i v e y e a r s i n
t h e S t a t e p r i s o n ? A. Yes."
W agree with defendant t h a t the prosecutor did not
e
specifically "voice" the recommendation of a five-year
s e n t e n c e b u t c o n c l u d e t h a t s u c h a c t i o n was n o t n e c e s s a r y i n
t h i s instance. I t is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e S t a t e f u l l y a p p r i s e d
t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e p r e t r i a l a g r e e m e n t and t h a t t h e
court was aware of the recommended five-year sentence
throughout the sentencing process. The S t a t e ' s o b l i g a t i o n
u n d e r t h e a g r e e m e n t i s t h u s deemed s a t i s f i e d .
Defendant next argues that the State breached the
pretrial agreement by advocating the imposition of a
s e n t e n c e g r e a t e r t h a n t h e recommended f i v e y e a r s . W e again
must d i s a g r e e .
I n s u p p o r t of h i s argument d e f e n d a n t n o t e s t h a t t h e
prosecutor, at the sentencing hearing, brought out that
defendant f a i l e d t o mention t h e f u l l e x t e n t of his prior
criminal record during the presentence investigation. We
f i n d no e r r o r in t h i s effort. Certainly the S t a t e should
not be forced to s t a n d by and a l l o w a d e f e n d a n t t o make
representations to the presentence investigator and the
sentencing court which the prosecutor believes have been
falsely stated in an improper attempt to better the
defendant's position. S u c h a r e s u l t w i l l n o t be p e r m i t t e d ,
and t h e f a c t t h a t a p r e t r i a l a g r e e m e n t h a s b e e n s i g n e d which
requires that a certain sentence be recommended has no
b e a r i n g upon t h i s c o n c l u s i o n .
Regarding t h e second i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t contends t h a t ,
under his v e r s i o n of the facts, t h e t h r e e counts of theft
w i t h which h e was c h a r g e d c o n s t i t u t e b u t o n e o f f e n s e i n o n e
t r a n s a c t i o n a n d , t h e r e f o r e , h e c o u l d be c o n v i c t e d o n l y o n c e .
I n r e j e c t i n g t h i s a r g u m e n t we need o n l y n o t e t h a t d e f e n d a n t ,
a f t e r b e i n g f u l l y a d v i s e d by c o u n s e l and t h e c o u r t , p l e a d e d
g u i l t y t o t h r e e s e p a r a t e counts of t h e f t a s charged i n t h e
information. The i n f o r m a t i o n , a s presented by t h e S t a t e ,
contends t h e o f f e n s e s a r o s e o u t of t h r e e s e p a r a t e i n c i d e n t s .
I f the defendant did not agree with t h i s version of
t h e c h a r g e s o r d i d n o t w i s h t o f a c e s e n t e n c i n g on a l l t h r e e
c o u n t s , he c o u l d h a v e g o n e t o t r i a l on h i s t h e o r y t h a t t h e
offenses in fact arose out of the same transaction.
D e f e n d a n t , h o w e v e r , c h o s e n o t t o d o s o and p l e a d e d g u i l t y a s
charged. We find no error in the District Court's
i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e upon a l l t h r e e c o u n t s .
The j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n a s e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t i s a f f irmed .
W concur:
e
A