NO. 96-057
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1996
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
ROBERT PAUL GOULET,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Cascade,
The Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Lawrence A. LaFountain, Attorney at Law,
Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General,
John Paulson, Ass't Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
Brant S. Light, Cascade County Attorney,
Julie A. Macek, Deputy Cascade County Attorney,
Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: June 27, 1996
Decided: August 6, 1996
Filed:
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Robert Paul Goulet appeals his conviction in the Eighth
Judicial District Court, Cascade County, of felony escape. We
affirm.
The issue on appeal is whether the District Court followed
statutory requirements in imposing sentence.
While subject to official detention at the Cascade County
Detention Center, Goulet climbed a wall in the recreation yard and
escaped. His escape was observed by a detention officer, who
warned him to stop and then pursued him on foot. Other officers
joined in, following Goulet to an apartment building which they
surrounded and where they found him hiding under a pile of debris
under a porch. The officers took Goulet back into custody and
returned him to the Detention Center.
Goulet pled guilty to felony escape. At the sentencing
hearing, neither the defense nor the State offered any testimony,
but counsel for both sides argued for particular sentences. The
State and the presentence investigation officer both recommended a
ten-year prison sentence. The defense recommended a two-year
prison sentence.
The District Court imposed a sentence of ten years at the
state prison, stating that the sentence was in accordance with the
recommendations of the State and the probation officer who prepared
the presentence investigation report. The court further stated
that it had taken into account Goulet's prior record, including his
long history of contact with the legal system as a juvenile.
2
Did the District Court follow statutory requirements in
imposing sentence?
The first statute upon which Goulet relies is § 46-l&
102 (3) (b), MCA, which requires that when a sentence is pronounced,
the court must "clearly state for the record [its] reasons for
imposing the sentence." Goulet points out that unless the reasons
for a sentence are set forth, one is left to guess at the reasons
and cannot know whether the sentence was imposed in violation of
due process or not. See State v. Stumpf (19801, 187 Mont. 225,
227, 609 P.2d 298, 299.
This Court has not insisted upon extensive statements of
sentencing reasons under § 46-l&102(3) lb), MCA. In State v.
Krantz (19901, 241 Mont. 501, 788 P.2d 298, cert. denied 498 U.S.
933, the Court upheld a sentence in which the district court's
stated reasons were the defendant's criminal record, the serious
nature of the offense, and the defendant's consistent pattern of
endangering other people.
In State v. Petroff (1988), 232 Mont. 20, 757 P.2d 759, the
reasons stated for the sentence were the recommendations of the
presentence investigation and the defendant's prior criminal
record. This Court ruled that the judgment clearly informed the
defendant of the reasons underlying his sentence and that no more
was required. Petroff, 757 P.2d at 761. Similarly in State v.
Johnson (1986), 221 Mont. 503, 719 P.2d 1248, the Court upheld a
sentence imposed for the stated reason of the defendant's history
of alcohol and driving offenses, considered along with the
presentence report.
3
In the present case, the District Court stated both orally and
in its written sentence that Goulet's sentence was imposed at the
recommendations of the prosecutor and the probation officer. The
court also stated that it had taken into consideration Goulet's
prior record and long history of contact with the legal system as
a juvenile. We hold that, like the reasons set forth by the
sentencing courts in Johnson, Petroff, and Krantz, this statement
of sentencing reasons is sufficient to comply with Stumpf and § 46-
l&102(3) (b), MCA.
Goulet contends that the sentence imposed upon him may have
been improperly influenced by reference at his sentencing hearing
and in his presentence investigation report to the fact that, at
the time of his escape, he was awaiting trial on a charge of
deliberate homicide. In making this argument, Goulet relies upon
State v. Herrera (1982), 197 Mont. 462, 643 P.Zd 588, and State v.
Olsen (1980), 189 Mont. 43, 614 P.2d 1061.
In Herrera, improper matter was brought before the sentencing
court, including a seemingly constitutionally defective conviction
in which Herrera was not afforded counsel, and incorrect informa-
tion as to his history of offenses involving guns. This Court
remanded for rehearing on sentencing, so that the correct informa-
tion could be presented to the court. Herrera, 643 P.2d at 592.
In u, the defendant's "rap" sheet contained inaccurate
entries, but the record contained substantial evidence that the
improper information was disclosed to, and discussed with, the
sentencing judge. There was ample evidence that the trial judge
relied only upon convictions and facts known to be true accounts of
4
Olsen's criminal record. This Court affirmed the sentence. Olsen,
614 P.2d at 1066.
In this case, the pending felony charge was an important
aspect of the crime of escape to which Goulet pled guilty and, as
such, was properly noted at the sentencing hearing. Section 45-7
306(3) (b) (i), MCA, provides that a person convicted of the offense
of escape shall be imprisoned for a term of up to ten years if he
has been charged with, or convicted of, a felony and escapes from
the county jail. The felony charge pending against Goulet at the
time of his escape provided a basis for the District Court to
impose a term of imprisonment rather than the six-month jail term
which would apply if the pending charge had been a misdemeanor. It
was proper for the court to be informed of the pending charge.
Nothing in the record indicates that the court improperly
relied upon the pending charge in sentencing Goulet. The court was
correctly informed at the sentencing hearing and in the presentence
investigation report that the charge was still pending at the time
of sentencing.
Goulet also urges that the court erred in sentencing him to
prison because he was a nonviolent felony offender and the crime to
which he pled guilty was not a crime of violence under 5 4618-
104(3), MCA. Montana law requires the sentencing court to consider
alternatives to incarceration when sentencing nonviolent offenders.
Section 46-18-201(11), MCA. We note that Goulet's own counsel
recommended a term of imprisonment for his client at the sentencing
hearing. Further, this argument was not raised before the District
Court.
5
This Court recently addressed a similar claim of error raised
for the first time on appeal, in State v. Nelson (1995), 274 Mont.
11, 906 P.2d 663. The Court held that Nelson's failure to object
to the sentence or to move for reconsideration barred him from
raising on appeal the issue of consideration of alternatives to
prison. Nelson, 906 P.2d at 668. The Court distinguished Nelson
from two previous cases--State v. Lenihan (1979), 184 Mont. 338,
602 P.Zd 997, and State v. Hatfield (1993), 256 Mont. 340, 846 P.2d
1025--on the basis that Lenihan and Hatfield involved sentences
that were illegal and in excess of statutory authority. Such was
not the case in Nelson, and it is not the case here. Goulet's ten-
year sentence does not exceed the maximum sentence for his crime
under § 45-7-306(3) (b), MCA. Absent objection before the trial
court or an opportunity for that court to consider this issue, we
decline to further address the issue on appeal.
Affirmed.
We concur:
Ju trees
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I herebycertify that the following certified order was sent by United Statesmail, prepaid,to the
following named:
LawrenceA. LaFountain
Attorney at Law
Cascade CountyCourthouse,
Rm. 110
Great Falls, MT 59401
Hon. Joseph Mazurek, A.G.
P.
JohnPaulson, Assistant
JusticeBldg.
Helena,MT 59620
Brant S. Light, CountyAttorney
Julie A. Macek, Chief Deputy
1214th StreetNorth
Great Falls, MT 59401
ED SMITH
CLERK OF THE SUPREMECOURT
STATEOF MONTANA