No. 82-69
I N T E SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O MONTANA
H F
1982
STATE O MOETANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
VS .
JAMES E. JELLE,
Defendant 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 F i f t h 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 of J e f f e r s o n
Honorable Frank B l a i r , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record :
For Appellant:
R o b e r t P e t e r s o n a r g u e d , H e l e e n a , Montana
F o r Respondent:
Honorable 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
S h e r i Sprigg argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General,
H e l e n a , Montana
C e c i l Woodgate a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , B o u l d e r , Montana
Submitted: September 1 5 , 1982
Decided: O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1982
Filed: QcTl3'1982
M r . 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 O p i n i o n of the
Court.
Petitioner-appellant ( d e f e n d a n t ) p l e d g u i l t y to t h e c h a r g e of
criminal sale of dangerous drugs and received a three-year
d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e on J u n e 9 , 1975. Subsequently, the sentence
was revoked and the District Court sentenced d e f e n d a n t to ten
y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . On A u g u s t 1 3 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t
petitioned t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l District i n
J e f f e r s o n County f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n relief. The p e t i t i o n was
d e n i e d on A u g u s t 2 4 , 1 9 8 1 , and d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s .
D e f e n d a n t was a r r e s t e d o n March 2 2 , 1975, for the criminal
sale of dangerous d r u g s . D e f e n d a n t p l e d g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e and
j u d g m e n t was r e n d e r e d o n J u n e 9 , 1 9 7 5 . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t imposed
a three-year d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e t o g e t h e r w i t h f i v e c o n d i t i o n s of
probation. The c o n d i t i o n s were as f o l l o w s :
1. T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s e e k and c o m p l e t e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n f o r
h i s a d m i t t e d a l c o h o l i s m and t h a t he make e v e r y e f f o r t t o a t t e n d a
vo-tech s c h o o l and a c q u i r e t r a i n i n g and e d u c a t i o n t h a t w i l l p r e -
p a r e him f o r employment.
2. That the defendant obey all statutes of the S t a t e of
Montana and all municipal regulations and ordinances.
3. That the defendant abstain from association with all
known u s e r s and s e l l e r s o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s .
4. T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t comply w i t h a l l r u l e s and r e q u i r e m e n t s
of t h e Board o f P a r d o n s , and r e p o r t r e g u l a r l y to t h e r e p r e s e n t a -
t i v e of s a i d board.
Two d a y s l a t e r , o n J u n e 11, 1 9 7 5 , d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d a m i s -
d e m e a n o r t h e f t f o r which h e p l e d g u i l t y . On J u l y 7 , 1975, the
Jefferson County Attorney's Office filed a motion to revoke
d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n o f s e n t e n c e on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t d e f e n d a n t had
v i o l a t e d numbers t w o and t h r e e of h i s p r o b a t i o n by u s i n g a l c o h o l
and committing a misdemeanor t h e £t . A f t e r h e a r i n g , on J u l y 1 4 ,
1 9 7 5 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n t o r e v o k e b u t amended
the original deferred sentence to include another condition,
" [ t l h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t be c o m m i t t e d t o and c o n f i n e d a t t h e Warm
Springs State Hospital, f o r n o t l e s s t h a n two y e a r s , f o r treat-
ment of his alcoholism, and other psychological problems."
Defendant was c o m m i t t e d to t h e Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l
b u t escaped w i t h i n s i x weeks, sometime around August 2 0 , 1975.
S h o r t l y af ter defendant l e f t W a r m S p r i n g s , d e f e n d a n t was i d e n -
t i f i e d as a p a r t i c i p a n t i n a r o b b e r y i n M i s s o u l a , Montana. The
day after the robbery, defendant was arrested in Colorado
following a shoot-out between defendant I s companion and the
C o l o r a d o Highway P a t r o l . Although t h e shoot-out resulted in two
d e a t h s , c h a r g e s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t were d r o p p e d b e c a u s e h e had n o t
taken p a r t i n the shooting incident.
On O c t o b e r 8 , 1975, t h e J e f f e r s o n County A t t o r n e y ' s Office
f i l e d a s e c o n d m o t i o n t o r e v o k e t h e d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of sen-
t e n c e upon the following grounds; t h a t d e f e n d a n t had l e f t Warm
Spring? without c o n s e n t of the staff, t h a t d e f e n d a n t had com-
m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e of robbery, t h a t d e f e n d a n t had b e e n a r r e s t e d
by the Colorado Highway Patrol, that defendant had left the
jurisdiction of his parole officer without permission, that
d e f e n d a n t had e n g a g e d i n a s e r i e s o f c o n t i n u o u s v i o l a t i o n s of t h e
c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e , and t h a t it was i n t h e b e s t
i n t e r e s t s of s o c i e t y t h a t d e f e n d a n t be incarcerated a t Montana
State Prison. On O c t o b e r 13, 1 9 7 5 , the D i s t r i c t Court revoked
the deferred i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e and s e n t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t to
t e n years i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n on h i s p r e v i o u s p l e a of
guilty to the charge of criminal sale of dangerous drugs.
The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in
Missoula, Montana, ordered defendant to return to Missoula
w h e r e u p o n d e f e n d a n t p l e d g u i l t y to t h e r o b b e r y c h a r g e . On March
1 2 , 1 9 7 6 , d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o f o r t y y e a r s i n t h e Montana
State Prison, with credit for 181 days already served in the
Missoula County j a i l .
On A u g u s t 1 3 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e District Court
of the Fifth Judicial District in Jefferson County f o r post-
c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 46-21-101, MCA, on t h e cri-
m i n a l s a l e of dangerous d r u g s s e n t e n c e . On A u g u s t 2 4 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e
District Court denied the p e t i t i o n .
On J u n e 18, 1 9 8 2 , d e f e n d a n t was r e l e a s e d from t h e Montana
S t a t e P r i s o n on p a r o l e . A s o f J u l y 1, 1 9 8 2 , the projected d a t e
f o r defendant's t e r m i n a t i o n of parole was J u n e 2 0 , 2012. It
appears defendant has been granted approximately three years,
seventy-four days of good time since he began serving the
Missoula County sentence. According to the Department of
Institutions, Corrections Division, defendant's obligation to
J e f f e r s o n County to t h e t e n - y e a r s e n t e n c e was f u l f i l l e d o n A p r i l
21, 1982, and he was d i s c h a r g e d d u e t o c o m p l e t i o n of h i s sen-
tence.
Defendant a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the F i f t h J u d i c i a l
District's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e :
1. Whether t h e a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of
defendant I s petition for post-conviction relief is moot.
2. Whether the District Court violated section 95-2206,
R.C.M., 1947, (now c o d i f i e d as s e c t i o n 46-18-201, MCA), and A r t .
11, S e c . 1 7 , o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n by amending d e f e n d a n t ' s
deferred sentence to i n c l u d e a mandatory two-year term a t t h e
Warm Springs S t a t e Hospital.
3. Whether t h e i m p o s i t i o n of a mandatory two-year term a t
W a r m S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l was n o t a c t u a l l y a c o n d i t i o n of the
deferred i m p o s i t i o n of sentence but r a t h e r a v a l i d penal sen-
tence.
4. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r -
t a i n a s e c o n d r e v o c a t i o n m o t i o n on O c t o b e r 8 , 1975, a s it had
already imposed a penal sentence on July 14, 1975.
Respondent a r g u e s s i n c e d e f e n d a n t h a s a t t a c k e d o n l y t h e sen-
t e n c e f r o m J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y t h a t h a s now e x p i r e d , the appeal is
moot. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t r e c e n t l y r u l e d upon t h i s
i s s u e i n Lane v. Williams ( 1 9 8 2 ) , U.S. .- , 1 0 2 S.Ct. 1322,
--- - L.Ed.2d - ----
. I n -- e , two d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d i n t o a p l e a
Lan
bargain with state-court prosecutors. The offense carried an
i n d e t e r m i n a t e s e n t e n c e of i m p r i s o n m e n t and a m a n d a t o r y t h r e e - y e a r
parole term. When t h e t w o d e f e n d a n t s p l e d g u i l t y , t h e y were n o t
informed that t h e i r negotiated sentence included t h e mandatory
parole term. Both defendants served time in prison, were
discharged and subsequently violated the conditions of their
parole. When defendants were forced to return to p r i s o n as
parole violators they petitioned f o r a w r i t of h a b e a s c o r p u s i n
F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t Court seeking t o e l i m i n a t e t h e mandatory p a r o l e
term f r o m t h e i r s e n t e n c e s . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d
t h a t had defendants s o u g h t to s e t a s i d e their convictions and
pled anew, their cases would not be moot as d e f e n d a n t s would
t h e n be f r e e t o s t a n d t r i a l f o r t h e o f f e n s e and p o s s i b l y r e c e i v e
greater sentences. However, defendants s o u g h t o n l y to attack
t h e i r s e n t e n c e s , w h i c h had e x p i r e d i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e i r pro-
ceedings. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d :
" S i n c e r e s p o n d e n t s e l e c t e d o n l y to a t t a c k
t h e i r s e n t e n c e s , and s i n c e t h o s e s e n t e n c e s
expired during the course of t h e s e pro-
c e e d i n g s , t h i s case i s moot. 'Nullification
o f a c o n v i c t i o n may h a v e i m p o r t a n t b e n e f i t s
f o r a defendant . .. but urging i n a habeas
c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g t h e c o r r e c t i o n of a s e n t e n c e
a l r e a d y s e r v e d is a n o t h e r matter. ' North
C a r o l i n a v . R i c e , 404 U.S. 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 , 9 2 S . C t .
4 0 2 , 4 0 5 , 30 L.Ed.2d 413." 1 0 2 S.Ct. a t 1327.
In the present case as in Lane, supra, defendant is
a t t e m p t i n g t o a t t a c k o n l y t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t a r o s e from h i 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 c r i m i n a l s a l e of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s . As
explained above, considering t h e amount o f good t i m e defendant
h a s a c c u m u l a t e d w h i l e s e r v i n g t h e J e f f e r s o n County s e n t e n c e and
t h e merged M i s s o u l a C o u n t y s e n t e n c e , t h e J e f f e r s o n County s e n -
t e n c e h a s now e x p i r e d and d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p e a l i s moot. T h i s Court
w i l l not c o n s i d e r moot p o i n t s . S t a t e v. Binzler (1979), ----
Mont . -- , 599 P.2d 3 4 9 , 3 6 S t . R e p . 1580.
Defendant argues a previous ten-year sentence contained i n a
pre-sentence investigation report would have greater in£ l u e n c e
upon the sentencing judge than would a two-year sentence.
However, a s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e is to be c o n c e r n e d p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e
f a c t of a previous conviction, not the accompanying sentence.
S e e s e c t i o n 46-18-501, et seq., MCA. Here, t h e r e c o r d i s v o i d of
any indication that defendant I s Missoula County sentence was
influenced by the length of the Jefferson County sentence.
A s d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p e a l is now moot and a s t h e r e is n o t h i n g in
t h e r e c o r d which r e f l e c t s d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e d a g r e a t e r s e n t e n c e
in Missoula County due to the Jefferson County sentence, the
District Court's denial of defendant's petition for post-
c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f is a f f irmed .
n
W e concur: \ I