NO. 83-125
I N T E SUPREPIE C U T O T E STATE O F M N A A
H O R F H OTN
1383
STATE O M N A A
F O T N ,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
VS .
H R E HINTZ and K N E H SCHAFER,
AVY E NT
Defendants and. A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second 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 Countv o f S i l v e r Bow
Honorable Mark S u l l i v a n , Judqe p r e s i d i n a .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t s :
Harvey H i n t z , Pro S e , Deer Lodoe, Montana
Kenneth S c h a f e r , P r o S e , Deer Lodse, Montana
For Respondent :
EIon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana
Robert McCarthy, County A t t o r n e y , B u t t e , Montana
Submitted on b r i e f s - June 1 0 , i98j
Decided- August 4 , 1953
Filed: Abi; 4 1983
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n 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.
T h i s i s an a p p e a l p r o se from a n o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g a p p e l l a n t s 1
p e t i t i o n for post-conviction r e l i e f entered i n the District Court
o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of S i l v e r Bow.
On November 28, 1974, Raymond J o s e p h M e r r i c k was shot and
k i l l e d d u r i n g a r o b b e r y of t h e Community Gas S t a t i o n , l o c a t e d on
F r o n t and Main S t r e e t in Butte, Montana. The a p p e l l a n t s were
a r r e s t e d on t h e same d a y and e a c h c h a r g e d w i t h one c o u n t of d e l i -
b e r a t e h o m i c i d e and o n e c o u n t of r o b b e r y t o which t h e y p l e d " n o t
guilty." Bond was s e t i n t h e amount of $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 f o r e a c h d e f e n -
dant. D e f e n d a n t s c o u l d n o t p o s t bond and b o t h were h e l d i n t h e
S i l v e r Bow County j a i l for a p e r i o d of a p p r o x i m a t e l y one y e a r .
D u r i n g t h a t y e a r p s y c h i a t r i c and p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n s were
made of t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l .
Arrested with the d e f e n d a n t s was one Mary J e a n Munson who
p l e d n o t g u i l t y and was l a t e r t r e a t e d a s a s e p a r a t e d e f e n d a n t and
p l e a bargained with the S t a t e .
On December 1 3 , t h e day s e t f o r a plea, Kenny S c h a f e r and
Mary J e a n Munson a p p e a r e d w i t h c o u n s e l M. P. S u l l i v a n , and H i n t z
appeared without counsel. On December 1 7 , H i n t z a p p e a r e d , r e p r e -
s e n t e d by c o u n s e l S u l l i v a n , and made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p s y c h i a t r i c
evaluation. In l a t e January, a c h a n g e of c o u n s e l o c c u r r e d and
H i n t z o b t a i n e d , by a p p o i n t m e n t , M i c h a e l McKeon of Anaconda t o a c t
as counsel. Schafer continued to be represented by M. P.
S u l l i v a n and J . J . P a r k e r . On J a n u a r y 2 8 , p l e a s of not g u i l t y
were e n t e r e d to the information. On March 2 9 , M. P. Sullivan
w i t h d r e w a s c o u n s e l f o r S c h a f e r and R . M. McCarthy was a p p o i n t e d
a s S c h a f e r l s counsel. On t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , J a m e s E. P u r c e l l was
appointed co-counsel f o r S c h a f e r and t h e t r i a l d a t e was s e t f o r
April 15, 1975. During the next several months a number of
e x t e n s i o n s w e r e g r a n t e d and c o n t i n u a n c e s w e r e a l l o w e d f o r p u r p o s e
of mental examinations. On J u n e 4 , 1975, t h e Honorable Arnold
O l s e n , having been d i s q u a l i f i e d , c a l l e d i n t h e Honorable James D .
Freebourn t o handle a l l f u r t h e r m a t t e r s . On S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 7 5 ,
t r i a l was s e t f o r Tuesday, November 4 , 1975, and t h e r e a f t e r a
number of d e f e n s e m o t i o n s were f i l e d . On November 1 2 , 1 9 7 5 , t h e
two d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d p l e a s of guilty to t h e c h a r g e of deli-
b e r a t e homicide. The H o n o r a b l e J a m e s F r e e b o u r n i m m e d i a t e l y sen-
t e n c e d e a c h d e f e n d a n t t o 1 0 0 y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n .
A t t h e t i m e of s e n t e n c i n g no p r e - s e n t e n c e investigation reports
w e r e o r d e r e d n o r made.
Seven years later, on September 20, 1982, the defendants
filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t of S i l v e r Bow County, a l l e g i n g t h a t " i n l i g h t of
t h e f a c t t h a t no p r e - s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t was made and
no reasons were articulated for the lengthy sentences, it is
p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge d i d n o t h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r -
m a t i o n upon which t o base a sentence. . . ." After the State
f i l e d i t s r e s p o n s e , t h e H o n o r a b l e M. P. S u l l i v a n , D i s t r i c t J u d g e ,
denied the defendants request for post-conviction relief.
Thereafter they f i l e d a p e t i t i o n for rehearing, which was a l s o
denied. This pro s e appeal follows.
The a p p e l l a n t s a l l e g e t h a t s e r i o u s e r r o r was committed i n t h e
District Court's failing to properly i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f a c t s and
circumstances of the case prior to imposing a sentence. The
p e t i t i o n e r s a l l e g e t h a t t h e c o u r t r e c o r d s c o n t a i n no s t a t e m e n t s
f r o m e i t h e r of them i n which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o u l d have known
that the shooting was an accident. They argue that if the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t had t a k e n t h e time t o r e a d t h e f i l e s , t h e y would
h a v e l e a r n e d t h a t one w i t n e s s t o t h e i n c i d e n t who had b e e n o r i g i -
n a l l y c h a r g e d a s a d e f e n d a n t , Mary Munson, had s i g n e d a s t a t e m e n t
i n which s h e t o l d t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e t h a t t h e s h o o t i n g
was a c c i d e n t a l . They a r g u e t h a t had t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n q u i r e d
f r o m them when a c c e p t i n g t h e change of p l e a s a s t o w h a t a c t u a l l y
o c c u r r e d a t t h e time of the robbery, t h e t r u t h would have b e e n
known a n d , i n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t c o u l d have o b t a i n e d t h a t i n f o r -
mation in a pre-sentence report had it been furnished to the
court. They a l l e g e t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of the robbery they
s h o t t h e a t t e n d a n t Ray M e r r i c k a c c i d e n t a l l y , when t h e d e c e a s e d ,
Merrick, w h i l e s t a n d i n g on a n e l e v a t e d p l a t f o r m b e s i d e t h e c a s h
r e g i s t e r , s l i p p e d and f e l l a g a i n s t p e t i t i o n e r S c h a f e r ' s arm t h a t
was h o l d i n g t h e gun. They a r g u e t h a t t h i s c a u s e d t h e weapon t o
accidentally discharge, striking the deceased under his
outstretched arm under the armpit causing immediate death.
P e t i t i o n e r s argue t h e District Court did not follow the appli-
cable statutes at the time of their sentencing. Sections
95-2201, 2 2 0 2 , 2203, RCM, 1 9 4 7 .
The c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t committed
error by not calling in another judge to hear the case after
having been i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a s e a s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . The s t a t u -
t e s of Montana r e q u i r e t h a t u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e judge
m u s t be d i s q u a l i f i e d and p r o v i d e s f o r t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n of j u d g e s
under t h i s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t a t u t e . S e c t i o n 3-1-802, MCA, pro-
v i d e s f o r t h e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of judges- The
p r e s i d i n g judge i n the post-conviction r e l i e f proceedings should
have d i s q u a l i f i e d himself pursuant t o t h e above p r o v i s i o n s and
c a l l e d i n a n o t h e r judge. I n view of t h e f a c t t h a t i t was e r r o r
o n h i s p a r t n o t t o do s o , t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n y i n g
post-conviction relief is v a c a t e d and t h e c a u s e i s remanded to
t h e District Court f o r a post-conviction hearing before another
District Judge.
We concur:
pA4&&L$w4q
Chief J u s t l c e