No. 84-350
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
1985
THE STATE OF
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs-
ANDREW MARTINEZ, JR., 11,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n 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 o f Y e l l o w s t o n e ,
The Honorable Diane G. B a r z , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
COUNSEL O RECORD:
F
For Appellant:
John I
,. Adams, B i l l i n g s , Montana
For 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
Harold H a n s e r , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : March 1 4 , 1985
Decided: J u n e 6 , 1985
Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
Following a jury verdict in the Yellowstone County
D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o 1 5 y e a r s i m p r i s o n -
ment f o r t h e s a l e o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s and 6 months f o r c a r r y -
ing a c o n c e a l e d weapon. The sentences w e r e to be served
concurrently with the last 5 years suspended. We affirm.
D e f e n d a n t r a i s e s two i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
1. Was t h e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c -
t i o n f o r criminal s a l e o f dangerous drugs?
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by
sentencing defendant to a prison term greater than that
imposed upon an a c c o m p l i c e ?
In January 1984, Mr. Nelson, an undercover narcotics
agent, purchased a pound of marijuana from J o h n F l o r e s , a
bartender. N e l s o n a r r a n g e d t o buy an a d d i t i o n a l f o u r pounds
o f m a r i j u a n a from F l o r e s on F e b r u a r y 8 , 1984.
The t e s t i m o n y o f F l o r e s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t on F e b r u a r y 6 ,
1984, d e f e n d a n t and L o u i e R i v e r a d r o v e F l o r e s t o a h o u s e a t
209 South 3 1 s t S t r e e t i n B i l l i n g s . A t t h a t r e s i d e n c e , Rivera
instructed F l o r e s a s t o how t h e e x c h a n g e o f m a r i j u a n a - f o r -
money would b e made a t t h e back d o o r . During t h e c o u r s e o f
t h a t conversation, Flores t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e defendant s t a t -
ed: "Hey, you g u y s , d o n ' t mess u p . "
On t h e morning o f F e b r u a r y 8 , 1 9 8 4 , Agent N e l s o n a r r e s t -
e d F l o r e s f o r c r i m i n a l s a l e o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s and c o n s p i r a c y
t o sell dangerous drugs. Following h i s a r r e s t , F l o r e s agreed
t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t i e s and t o c o m p l e t e t h e m a r i -
juana s a l e scheduled f o r t h a t day. Flores told the police
t h a t h e o b t a i n e d h i s m a r i j u a n a from R i v e r a and t h a t R i v e r a i n
t u r n o b t a i n e d h i s m a r i j u a n a from d e f e n d a n t .
A f t e r s e v e r a l t e l e p h o n e c a l l s , F l o r e s was a b l e t o con-
t a c t R i v e r a and was i n s t r u c t e d t o p r o c e e d t o t h e r e s i d e n c e a t
209 S o u t h 3 1 s t S t r e e t . Agent N e l s o n and F l o r e s a r r i v e d a t
that address a t approximately 6:25 p.m. Defendant, Rivera
and t h r e e o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e i n s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e . The
testimony o f t h o s e i n s i d e t h e house i n d i c a t e d t h e following
sequence o f e v e n t s : Rivera a r r i v e d f i r s t ; defendant a r r i v e d
later, s h o r t l y a f t e r 6:00 p.m. D e f e n d a n t had a c o n v e r s a t i o n
with Rivera. After t h e conversation, d e f e n d a n t went t o t h e
l i v i n g room and w a t c h e d t e l e v i s i o n . R i v e r a went t o t h e b a c k
d o o r where some c o n v e r s a t i o n was h e a r d . A t t h a t t i m e defen-
d a n t was i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e kitchen. Rivera returned
from t h e b a c k door, located in the kitchen, and t a l k e d to
defendant in the living room. About f i v e minutes later,
defendant l e f t .
Other testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e persons a t t h e back
d o o r w e r e Agent N e l s o n and F l o r e s . F l o r e s gave Rivera 50
marked $100 b i l l s , t o t a l i n g $ 5 , 0 0 0 , and r e c e i v e d f o u r p o u n d s
o f m a r i j u a n a i n 8 z i p - l o c b a g s from R i v e r a .
D e f e n d a n t was apprehended by the police a f t e r he left
t h e house. During t h e a r r e s t , a small automatic p i s t o l f e l l
from h i s w a i s t b a n d . The p o l i c e found 4 7 o f t h e marked $100
b i l l s i n d e f e n d a n t ' s b a c k p o c k e t and a b a g g i e o f m a r i j u a n a .
The p o l i c e a l s o a r r e s t e d R i v e r a when h e l e f t t h e r e s i d e n c e .
T h r e e o f t h e marked $100 b i l l s w e r e found i n R i v e r a ' s p o c k e t .
The e v i d e n c e showed t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f i n g e r p r i n t was on
one of the eight zip-loc bags of marijuana sold t o Agent
Nelson.
I
Was t h e evidence sufficient to support t h e conviction
f o r criminal. s a l e o f dangerous drugs?
Defendant contends t h a t he d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e in the
s a l e o f m a r i j u a n a b e c a u s e h i s i n v o l v e m e n t was s u b s e q u e n t t o
the time the marijuana-for-money exchange was completed.
I n S t a t e v. Davis (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 620 P.2d 1 2 0 9 , 3.214-15,
37 St.Rep. 1958, 1964, this Court adopted the following
d e f i n i t i o n of criminal s a l e :
"To s e l l [ d r u g s ] means t o knowingly and
intentionally transfer possession or
ownership o f t h e [drugs] t o a n o t h e r f o r
money o r o t h e r va l u a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
F o r a p e r s o n t o make s u c h a s a l e it i s
n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t he p e r s o n a l l y handle
a l l of t h e d e t a i l s of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n .
It is sufficient i f the transaction is
a r r a n g e d by him and h a n d l e d by p e r s o n s
u n d e r h i s d i r e c t i o n and i t i s s u f f i c e n t
t o constitute a sale i f t h e person
charged w i t h s a l e i s involved i n t h e
t r a n s a c t i o n by a c c e p t i n g , h a n d l i n g , o r
c o u n t i n g t h e money and d i r e c t i n g t h e
d e l i v e r y of t h e [drugs] . I n o t h e r words,
t h e person charged with t h e s a l e does n o t
have t o p e r s o n a l l y conduct a l l o f t h e
various elements of delivery of the
[ d r u g s ] and t h e t r a n s f e r o f t h e money.
It i s s u f f i c i e n t i f he p a r t i c i p a t e s
t h e r e i n t o s u c h an e x t e n t t h a t i t i s
o b v i o u s t h a t h e i s a p a r t o f t h e making
of t h e s a l e . "
I n S t a t e v. Gladue (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 679 P.2d 1256, 1258, 4 1
St.Rep. 669, 672, w e s e t f o r t h t h e s t a n d a r d a p p l i e d by t h i s
Court i n i t s review of t h e evidence:
"The t e s t f o r t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e
evidence to s u p p o r t t h e judgment of
conviction i s whether t h e r e i s substan-
t i a l evidence t o support t h e conviction,
viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e
State. S t a t e v . Lamb (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 646
P.2d 516, 39 St.Rep. 1021. The r e s o l u -
t i o n of factual matters is f o r t h e jury,
and i f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o
s u p p o r t t h e judgment, t h i s C o u r t must
a f f i r m t h e decision of t h e jury. State
v . Hardy ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 1185 Mont. 1301 604 P.2d
792, 37 St.Rep. 1. D i s p u t e d q u e s t i o n s o f
f a c t and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s
w i l l n o t be considered o n appeal. State
v. DeGeorge ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 3 5 , 566
P.2d 59."
In S t a t e v. Kutnyak (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 685 P.2d 901, 910-11,
4 1 St.Rep. 1277, 1289, w e s t a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g w i t h r e g a r d t o
t h e d e f i n i t i o n of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence:
" S u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s defined a s such
r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e a s a r e a s o n a b l e mind
might a c c e p t as adequate to support a
conclusion. "
Defendant contends t h a t because o f c o n f l i c t i n g evidence,
t h e t r i e r o f f a c t c o u l d n o t have found t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s
of t h e crime. Defendant contends t h a t t h e evidence e s t a b -
lishes that: h e was v i s i t i n g h i s f r i e n d s a t t h e r e s i d e n c e
where t h e s a l e o c c u r r e d , m e r e l y made s m a l l t a l k w i t h R i v e r a ,
was i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e k i t c h e n o n l y b e c a u s e h e was u s i n g
t h e bathroom, had $4,700 i n marked money b e c a u s e R i v e r a a s k e d
him t o t r a n s p o r t t h e money t o t h e Brown J u g Tavern--which was
o n l y a l i t t l e o v e r a b l o c k away--and t h a t h i s f i n g e r p r i n t was
on t h e z i p - l o c b a g b e c a u s e , w h i l e u s i n g t h e b a t h r o o m , h e t o o k
a q u a n t i t y o f m a r i j u a n a from t h e bag f o r h i m s e l f .
The State's evidence showed that the defendant was
p r e s e n t w i t h R i v e r a and F l o r e s a t t h e t i m e t h e i n i t i a l p l a n s
w e r e made f o r t h e s a l e o f t h e $5,000 w o r t h o f m a r i j u a n a and
that defendant told Rivera and Flores "don't mess up."
D e f e n d a n t was a l s o p r e s e n t a t t h e r e s i d e n c e where t h e m a r i -
juana s a l e t o o k p l a c e and t a l k e d t o R i v e r a b e f o r e and a f t e r
the sale. D e f e n d a n t had $4,700 o f marked $100 b i l l s i n h i s
r e a r p o c k e t and h i s f i n g e r p r i n t was found on 1 o f t h e 8 b a g s
o f m a r i j u a n a s o l d t o Agent Nelson.
W e c o n c l u d e t h a t w h i l e t h e r e was some c o n f l i c t i n t h e
evidence, t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h a t c o n f l i c t was f o r t h e j u r y .
We hold t h a t , when viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e
S t a t e , t h e r e c l e a r l y was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e
conviction.
I1
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n by s e n t e n c -
i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a p r i s o n t e r m g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t imposed upon
an accomplice?
Defendant a r g u e s t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e o f 15 y e a r s w i t h 5
years s u s p e n d e d was u n f a i r b e c a u s e R i v e r a o n l y r e c e i v e d 10
y e a r s w i t h 7 y e a r s suspended. However, a s p o i n t e d o u t b y t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d e f e n d a n t was b o t h a s u p p l i e r a n d d r u g d e a l -
er. This along with other f a c t o r s made it a p p r o p r i a t e t o
s e n t e n c e him t o 1 5 y e a r s w i t h 5 s u s p e n d e d . There i s no b a s i s
f o r c o m p a r i s o n o f t h a t s e n t e n c e , imposed a f t e r t r i a l , t o t h e
plea bargain sentence o f Rivera. The s e n t e n c e imposed upon
t h e defendant is w e l l within t h e provisions of § 45-9-101,
MCA, w h i c h would a l l o w l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t .
We have previously refused to review a sentence on
a p p e a l on t h e issue of d i s p a r i t y only. In S t a t e v. Lloyd
(Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 676 P.2d 229, 231, 41 St.Rep. 263, 266, this
Court s t a t e d :
"We w i l l n o t r e v i e w a s e n t e n c e on a p p e a l
f o r mere i n e q u i t y o r d i s p a r i t y . Such a
review i s t o b e conducted by t h e Sentence
Review Division. S t a t e ex rel. Greely v.
D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 180 Mont. 3 1 7 ,
3 2 7 , 590 P.2d 1 1 0 4 , 1110. Rather, t h i s
C o u r t w i l l o n l y review s e n t e n c e s f o r
their legality. The s t a n d a r d f o r s u c h
review i s whether the c o u r t abused i t s
d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e sentencing process."
T h i s C o u r t h a s a l s o s t a t e d t h a t "a sentence within t h e
l i m i t s provided by s t a t u t e i s n o t a n abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . "
S t a t e v. Lemmon (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 692 P.2d 455, 459, 41 S t . R e p .
W e hold t h a t t h e District Court d i d not abuse i t s d i s -
c r e t i o n by s e n t e n c i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a p r i s o n t e r m g r e a t e r t h a n
t h a t imposed upon h i s a c c o m p l i c e .