DA 06-0426
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2007 MT 212N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RODNEY A. EDMUNDSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DC-05-063(C)
Honorable Stewart E. Stadler, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
The Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; C. Mark Fowler,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Ed Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney; Dan Guzynski, Deputy
County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 25, 2007
Decided: August 28, 2007
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in
this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana Reports.
¶2 Rodney Edmundson appeals from the order entered by the Eleventh Judicial
District Court, Flathead County, denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the
felony offense of assault with a weapon. Observing § 46-16-105(2), MCA, requires a
showing of “good cause” to withdraw a guilty plea, the District Court reasoned, among
other things, that its interrogation at the change of plea hearing was adequate, five
additional criminal charges were dismissed, and no evidence established that the
prescription medication Edmundson allegedly took prevented him from pleading
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.
¶3 On appeal, Edmundson asserts the District Court erred in denying his motion
without first holding a hearing. Edmundson concedes he signed a written
acknowledgment of rights form specifically stating he was not under the influence of
prescription drugs, and responded in the negative to a question posed by the District
Court at the change of plea hearing about whether he had any drugs or alcohol in his
system. Edmundson contends, however, that a hearing is necessary because his motion to
withdraw his plea and supporting affidavit state he was under the influence of two pain
2
medications when he pled guilty, was not fully aware of the proceedings and responded
only as directed by counsel. Asserting any doubt about whether a guilty plea was
voluntary or intelligent must be resolved in the defendant’s favor, Edmundson argues his
affidavit supplied sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing, at which time the District
Court could ascertain whether his assertions are credible.
¶4 Edmundson also asserts and argues other matters. Those matters are not properly
before us in this appeal.
¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of
our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for
memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record that
Edmundson’s appeal is without merit because most of the issues are clearly controlled by
settled Montana law that the District Court correctly interpreted, and to the extent the
issue regarding whether to hold a hearing was one of judicial discretion, there clearly was
not an abuse of discretion.
¶6 Affirmed.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
We concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
3