Parker v. Crist

No. 14954

I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA

1980

ALTON MAURICE PARKER,

Petitioner,

ROGER W. CRIST-WARDEN MONTANA
STATE P R I S O N ,

Respondent.

O R I G I N A L PROCEEDING:

C o u n s e l of R e c o r d :

For P e t i t i o n e r :

John M c D o n a l d , M o n t a n a D e f e n d e r P r o j e c t , M i s s o u l a ,
Montana
Jchn E - R i d d i o u g h argued, I n t e r n , M o n t a n a D e f e n d e r
Project, M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a

For R e s p o n d e n t :

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
John M a y n a r d a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ,
Helena, Montana
R o b e r t L. D e s c h a m p s , 111, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , Missoula,
Montana

Submitted: April 14, 1980
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
P e t i t i o n e r Alton Maurice P a r k e r has f i l e d i n t h i s Court a
p r o se p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . He alleges several

e r r o r s r e l a t i n g to h i s t r i a l , c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e t o l i f e
i m p r i s o n m e n t o n s e v e n c o u n t s of armed r o b b e r y and o n e c o u n t of
a s s a u l t i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f M i s s o u l a County i n 1 9 7 1 .

The c h a r g e s a g a i n s t p e t i t i o n e r arose o u t of a n armed r o b -

b e r y o f s e v e n p e r s o n s and a p i s t o l w h i p p i n g of o n e i n a b a r i n
M i l l t o w n , Montana, o n December 26, 1 9 7 0 . P e t i t i o n e r was c h a r g e d

b y i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h o n e c o u n t o f armed r o b b e r y on J u l y 1 2 , 1 9 7 1 .
Court-appointed c o u n s e l was a s s i g n e d t o r e p r e s e n t p e t i t i o n e r , b u t
b e f o r e p e t i t i o n e r e n t e r e d a p l e a t o t h a t c h a r g e a n amended i n f o r -

m a t i o n was f i l e d c h a r g i n g p e t i t i o n e r w i t h s e v e n c o u n t s of armed
r o b b e r y and o n e c o u n t o f a s s a u l t . F o l l o w i n g p e t i t i o n e r ' s p l e a of
n o t g u i l t y t o e a c h o f t h e c h a r g e s , a j u r y t r i a l was h e l d

r e s u l t i n g i n p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n of a l l c h a r g e s . Petitioner
w a s sentenced to l i f e imprisonment.
W a f f irmed p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n .
e S t a t e v. P a r k e r

( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 3 9 4 , 506 P.2d 850. Thereafter petitioner filed

a m o t i o n f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n of r e c o r d s i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
w h i c h was d e n i e d . P e t i t i o n e r t h e n s o u g h t t h e same r e l i e f in this

Court. W e denied the r e l i e f sought. P e t i t i o n of P a r k e r
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 2 Mont. 3 3 0 , 5 1 1 P.2d 973.
P e t i t i o n e r n e x t s o u g h t r e l i e f b e f o r e t h e S e n t e n c e Review

D i v i s i o n of t h i s Court. The S e n t e n c e Review D i v i s i o n d e n i e d
r e l i e f , l e a v i n g h i s s e n t e n c e as o r i g i n a l l y imposed.
P e t i t i o n e r then f i l e d the present p e t i t i o n f o r post-

conviction r e l i e f . W e o r d e r e d t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l and t h e

M i s s o u l a County A t t o r n e y to f i l e a w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e to t h e
petition. F o l l o w i n g r e c e i p t of t h e r e s p o n s e w e a p p o i n t e d J o h n

McDonald o f t h e Montana D e f e n d e r P r o j e c t t o r e p r e s e n t p e t i t i o n e r .
F o l l o w i n g t h e f i l i n g o f b r i e f s , o r a l a r g u m e n t w a s h e a r d and t h e
matter w a s t a k e n u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t .
 P e t i t i o n e r f i r s t contends t h a t c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n No. 8

w a s r e v e r s i b l e error e n t i t l i n g him t o a new t r i a l . Instruction

No. 8 read:

" I n e v e r y crime or p u b l i c o f f e n s e t h e r e m u s t
e x i s t a u n i o n or j o i n t o p e r a t i o n of a c t and
i n t e n t , o r criminal negligence. The i n t e n t or
i n t e n t i o n is m a n i f e s t e d by t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e o f f e n s e and t h e sound mind
and d i s c r e t i o n of t h e accused.

" I n o r d e r to c o n s t i t u t e t h e o f f e n s e charged i n
t h i s case, t h e i n t e n t a l l e g e d i n t h e I n f o r m a t i o n
i s n e c e s s a r y t o be p r o v e d , b u t d i r e c t and p o s i -
t i v e t e s t i m o n y is n o t n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v e t h e
intent. I t may be i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e i f
t h e r e are a n y f a c t s p r o v e d w h i c h s a t i s f y t h e
j u r y , beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , o f i t s
existence.

"The l a w a l s o p r e s u m e s t h a t a p e r s o n i n t e n d s t h e
o r d i n a r y c o n s e q u e n c e s of a n y v o l u n t a r y a c t com-
m i t t e d by him. The l a t t e r p r e s u m p t i o n , h o w e v e r ,
is t e r m e d a d i s p u t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n and may be
c o n t r o v e r t e d by o t h e r e v i d e n c e . "

The p e n u l t i m a t e s e n t e n c e i n t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n is s u b s t a n -
t i a l l y t h e same as t h e i n s t r u c t i o n condemned by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
Supreme C o u r t i n S a n d s t r o m v. Montana ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 4 2 U.S. 510, 99
S.Ct. 2450, 6 1 L.Ed.2d 39. A l t h o u g h no o b j e c t i o n t o t h i s i n s t r u c -

t i o n was made a t t h e t r i a l , w e now r e v i e w t h i s i s s u e u n d e r t h e
" p l a i n errorn r u l e . S e c t i o n 46-20-702, MCA. S e e H a l l d o r s o n v.

H a l l d o r s o n ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 5 Mont. 1 7 0 , 573 P.2d 169.

P e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n e i t h e r s h i f t s
t h e burden of proof on t h e i s s u e of i n t e n t from t h e S t a t e to t h e
d e f e n d a n t or c o n s t i t u t e s a c o n c l u s i v e p r e s u m p t i o n a g a i n s t t h e

d e f e n d a n t , e i t h e r of w h i c h is c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i m p e r m i s s i b l e
under Sandstrom. I n re W i n s h i p ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 3 9 7 U.S. 358, 90 S . C t .
1 0 6 8 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368; M u l l a n e y v . W i l b u r ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 4 2 1 U . S .
684, 95 S.Ct. 1 8 8 1 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508; Morissette v. U n i t e d S t a t e s
( 1 9 5 2 ) , 342 U.S. 246, 72 S . C t . 240, 9 6 L.Ed 288.
P e t i t i o n e r ' s contention f a i l s f o r t h r e e reasons. The
i n s t r u c t i o n i t s e l f is c l e a r l y a p e r m i s s i v e i n f e r e n c e and n o t a
c o n c l u s i v e presumption. S e e C o u n t y C o u r t of U l s t e r C o u n t y v .

A l l e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 442 U.S. 1 4 0 , 99 S . C t . 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777; S t a t e
v . Coleman ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mon t . , 6 0 5 P.2d 1 0 0 0 , 36 S t . R e p . 2237.

The q u e s t i o n e d i n s t r u c t i o n is n o t a " n a k e d " p r e s u m p t i o n as i n

S a n d s t r o m ; t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s as a w h o l e make it a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r

t h a t t h e S t a t e b e a r s t h e b u r d e n of p r o v i n g beyond a r e a s o n a b l e

d o u b t e v e r y e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e crimes o f which t h e d e f e n -

d a n t was c h a r g e d . Finally, we d e c l a r e t h a t t h e error, i f any,
was h a r m l e s s beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . Chapman v. California

( 1 9 6 7 ) , 386 U.S. 1 8 , 87 S.Ct. 8 2 4 , 1 7 L.Ed.2d 705, r e h e a r i n g

d e n i e d 386 U.S. 987, 87 S.Ct. 1 2 8 3 , 1 8 L.Ed.2d 241; S t a t e v.

Blackney (1979), Mont . , 6 0 5 P.2d 1093, 1099, 36 St.Rep.

2193, 2200-01; S t a t e v. Hamilton (1980), Mont . , 6 0 5 P.2d

1 1 2 1 , 1 1 3 1 , 37 S t . R e p . 7 0 , 81-82. The e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e armed

r o b b e r i e s and a s s a u l t had o c c u r r e d and t h e p e r p e t r a t o r s p o s s e s s e d

t h e r e q u i s i t e i n t e n t was o v e r w h e l m i n g , the only issue being t h e

i d e n t i t y of the defendant. S t a t e v. McKenzie ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont .
, 608 P.2d 4 2 8 , 4 5 9 , 37 S t . R e p . 3 2 5 , 358-9; S t a t e v. Hamilton,

supra, Mont. a t , 6 0 5 P.2d a t 1132-33, 37 S t . R e p . at
82-83. P e t i t i o n e r m u s t show t h e i n v a l i d i t y of t h e p r e s u m p t i o n as

t o him or t h e r e is no p r e j u d i c e and no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . State

v . Sunday ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 609 P.2d 1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 6 , 37

St.Rep. 5 6 1 , 569.

N e x t , p e t i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n was

i m p r o p e r l y f i l e d b e c a u s e no s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t was f i l e d

e s t a b l i s h i n g probable cause.

The f a c t s r e l a t i n g t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h e amended i n f o r -

m a t i o n are c l e a r and u n c o n t r a d i c t e d . The o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n
c h a r g e d p e t i t i o n e r w i t h o n e c o u n t of armed r o b b e r y naming a s v i c -

t i m s a l l s e v e n p e r s o n s l a t e r named i n t h e s e v e n c o u n t s of t h e
amended i n f o r m a t i o n . B e f o r e p e t i t i o n e r e n t e r e d a p l e a to t h e

o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f i l e d a n amended

i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h l e a v e of c o u r t b u t w i t h o u t an a f f i d a v i t

e s t a b l i s h i n g probable cause. The amended i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g e d

p e t i t i o n e r w i t h s e v e n c o u n t s o f armed r o b b e r y and o n e c o u n t of
assault. N o o b j e c t i o n was made by p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e f i l i n g o f

t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r s i m p l y p l e a d n o t g u i l t y to
e a c h o f t h e c h a r g e s and w e n t t o t r i a l . N o r did petitioner i n h i s

a p p e a l r a i s e t h e i s s u e h e now s e e k s t o r a i s e i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g .
S t a t e v. P a r k e r , s u p r a .
The s t a t u t e i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e of p e t i t i o n e r ' s trial
p r o v i d e d t h a t d e f e c t s i n i n s t i t u t i n g t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of t h e case

o r i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n m u s t be r a i s e d b e f o r e t r i a l and t h a t
f a i l u r e t o d o so c o n s t i t u t e s a w a i v e r of a n y d e f e c t s . Former

s e c t i o n 95-1702, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 46-13-102, MCA. Thus
t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t s i n f i l i n g t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n were w a i v e d
b y p e t i t i o n e r ' s f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t p r i o r to t r i a l .

More i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e f i l i n g of t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n
w i t h o u t an accompanying a f f i d a v i t e s t a b l i s h i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r
t h e s e v e n r o b b e r y c o u n t s was n o t e r r o r i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h i s

case. The p u r p o s e o f r e q u i r i n g a n a f f i d a v i t or o t h e r s h o w i n g of
p r o b a b l e c a u s e b e f o r e a p r o s e c u t i o n is i n s t i t u t e d is t o p r e v e n t
unwarranted p r o s e c u t i o n s of innocent i n d i v i d u a l s without p r o o f .

Here t h e a f f i d a v i t f i l e d w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n
e s t a b l i s h e d p r o b a b l e c a u s e as t o e a c h v i c t i m named i n e a c h of t h e
s e v e n c o u n t s o f r o b b e r y i n t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . The f i l i n g

o f a s e c o n d a f f i d a v i t c o n t a i n i n g t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e
same s h o w i n g o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e would s e r v e no p u r p o s e , would n o t
c o n t r a v e n e t h e p o l i c y b e h i n d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t , and would be

superf luous. The l a w d o e s n o t r e q u i r e i d l e a c t s . Section

1-3-223 , MCA.

P e t i t i o n e r suggests t h a t the reason f o r f i l i n g the
m u l t i p l e c h a r g e s o f r o b b e r y w a s r e t a l i a t i o n by t h e p r o s e c u t i n g
a t t o r n e y a g a i n s t p e t i t i o n e r because p l e a bargaining n e g o t i a t i o n s
h a d b r o k e n down and p e t i t i o n e r had e l e c t e d t o s t a n d t r i a l r a t h e r

than plead guilty. The s i m p l e a n s w e r t o t h i s is t h a t t h i s is a n

u n f o u n d e d a c c u s a t i o n n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s case.
S t a t e v. S a t h e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 428, 5 6 4 P.2d 1 3 0 6 , c i t e d by
d e f e n d a n t is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h i s case by r e a s o n of t h i s
difference.

However, t h e c h a r g e o f a s s a u l t is u n s u p p o r t e d by a n y
showing of p r o b a b l e cause. Nothing contained i n t h e o r i g i n a l
a f f i d a v i t r e l a t e s to a n y a s s a u l t . T h i s is " p l a i n error" o f

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l m a g n i t u d e t h a t r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l of p e t i t i o n e r ' s
c o n v i c t i o n o f a s s a u l t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s of f o r m e r
s e c t i o n 95-1702, R.C.M. 1947, p r e v i o u s l y c i t e d . Due p r o c e s s of

l a w r e q u i r e s no less.
P e t i t i o n e r also o b j e c t s to b e i n g charged w i t h m u l t i p l e
c o u n t s of r o b b e r y a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same i n c i d e n t . The S t a t e

i s p e r m i t t e d t o do so by t h e e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n s of s t a t u t e .
F o r m e r s e c t i o n s 95-1504 and 9 5 - 1 7 1 1 ( 2 ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s
46-11-404(1) a n d 46-11-502, MCA, respectively. Although t h e

p r o p r i e t y of f i l i n g such m u l t i p l e c h a r g e s has been c r i t i c i z e d i n
some cases ( B a r n h a r t v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 4 ) , Okla . C r i m . , 518
P.2d 1 1 2 3 ; P e o p l e v. B a i l e y ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 3 8 Cal.App.3d 693, 1 1 3

Cal.Rptr. 514; S t a t e e x r e l . McKenzie v. D i s t . C t . ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5
Mont. 5 4 , 5 2 5 P.2d 1 2 1 1 ) , it is w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e
p r o s e c u t i o n t o do so u n d e r Montana l a w and a c c o r d i n g l y t h e r e is

no e r r o r .
F i n a l l y , p e t i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s t h a t h e is e n t i t l e d t o p o s t -
c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f because he w a s pushed i n t o t h e courtroom w h i l e

h a n d c u f f e d and s u r r o u n d e d by l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s . Peti-
t i o n e r h a s p r o d u c e d no e v i d e n c e t h a t h e was s e e n i n h a n d c u f f s by
any juror. A c c o r d i n g l y , h i s a c c u s a t i o n f a i l s f o r w a n t of

support.
P e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n of a s s a u l t is r e v e r s e d . A s we

h a v e no way o f d e t e r m i n i n g t o w h a t e x t e n t t h i s c o n v i c t i o n

a f f e c t e d t h e s e n t e n c e o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r a l l crimes of
w h i c h p e t i t i o n e r was c o n v i c t e d by j u r y v e r d i c t , t h e c a u s e is
remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of M i s s o u l a County w i t h d i r e c t i o n s

t o r e s e n t e n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e s e v e n c o u n t s of armed r o b b e r y
o f w h i c h he was d u l y and r e g u l a r l y c o n v i c t e d .

Chief J u s t i c e

W e concur:

Hon. H. W i l l i a m C o d e r , ~ i s t r i c t l
J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r .
J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly
M r . J u s t i c e D a n i e l J. S h e a , d e e m i n g h i m s e l f d i s q u a l i f i e d ,
did not p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s case.