No. 13482
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF MONTANA
F
1978
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs-
RICHARD CLARENCE PEPPERLING,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
R i c h a r d P e p p e r l i n g , P r o S e , Deer Lodge, 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 , Helena, Montana
Harold F. 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 : May 9 , 1978
Decided : JUL 26 3$M
Mr.J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by t h e d e f e n d a n t R i c h a r d C l a r e n c e
P e p p e r l i n g from a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 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 , Yellowstone County, on J u l y 2 , 1976,
denying t h e motion of t h e a p p e l l a n t P e p p e r l i n g t o w i t h -
draw h i s g u i l t y p l e a and t o v a c a t e h i s s e n t e n c e . His
g u i l t y p l e a was made on November 5 , 1975 t o a c h a r g e of
b u r g l a r y w i t h i n c r e a s e d punishment, and a s e n t e n c e of 20
y e a r s w a s g i v e n t o him as a r e s u l t of s a i d p l e a .
T h i s c a s e come on r e g u l a r l y f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i t h o u t
o r a l argument under t h e I n t e r n a l O p e r a t i n g Rules of t h i s
Court.
On August 22, 1975, a n i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d a g a i n s t
t h e d e f e n d a n t , c h a r g i n g him w i t h t h e c r i m e of b u r g l a r y of
t h e F r a t e r n a l Order of E a g l e s b u i l d i n g l o c a t e d i n L a u r e l ,
Montana. Under s e c t i o n 94-6-204(1), R.C.M. 1947, a t t h e
t i m e of h i s a r r a i g n m e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t was s e r v e d i n
open c o u r t by t h e county a t t o r n e y w i t h a N o t i c e t o I n c r e a s e
Punishment, i n which n o t i c e t h e d e f e n d a n t was informed t h a t
t h e S t a t e of Montana would s e e k i n c r e a s e d punishment of t h e
d e f e n d a n t a s a p r i o r c o n v i c t e d f e l o n , on two p r e v i o u s
c o n v i c t i o n s , o n e f o r g r a n d l a r c e n y committed i n 1971, and
o n e f o r b u r g l a r y committed i n 1972.
A t t h e t i m e of h i s a r r a i g n m e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t informed
t h e court t h a t h e w a s i n d i g e n t . Accordingly, t h e c o u r t
a p p o i n t e d Michael Whalen, a n a t t o r n e y i n B i l l i n g s , o n e of
t h r e e who a c t a s p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s i n t h a t c o u r t , t o r e p r e s e n t
defendant i n t h i s case.
Defendant t o l d t h e c o u r t t h a t of t h e t h r e e a t t o r n e y s
t h e n employed by t h e c o u n t y a s p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s , Michael
Whalen, ~ o h n
Adams, and R u s s e l l F i l l n e r , h e would p r e f e r
n o t t o have e i t h e r M r . Whalen o r M r . Adams a p p o i n t e d .
he c o u r t f i r s t a p p o i n t e d M r . F i l l n e r t o r e p r e s e n t him
and t h e n l e a r n e d t h a t M r . F i l l n e r was r e p r e s e n t i n g a co-
d e f e n d a n t charged i n a s e p a r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h t h e s a m e
crime. Because t h i s appeared t o p r e s e n t a c o n f l i c t of
i n t e r e s t , t h e c o u r t t h e n a p p o i n t e d M r . Whalen t o r e p r e -
s e n t defendant. T h i s was approved by d e f e n d a n t a t t h e
time.
On September 1 2 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t came i n t o c o u r t
upon h i s p e t i t i o n - -e , t h a t h i s c o u n s e l , M r . Whalen,
pro s
be d i s m i s s e d and t h a t he b e a s s i g n e d a n o t h e r c o u n s e l t o
r e p r e s e n t him i n t h e c a s e . He informed t h e c o u r t t h a t , "me
and M r . Whalen d o n ' t s e e e y e t o e y e " . H e told the court
t h a t he f e l t he was e n t i t l e d t o f a i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and h e
j u s t d i d n ' t f e e l t h a t h e would r e c e i v e t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
from M r . Whalen. The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t M r . Whalen was a n
e x c e l l e n t a t t o r n e y and w e l l q u a l i f i e d i n c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s
and t h e c o u r t e x p r e s s e d i t s f e e l i n g t h a t M r . Whalen t o o k
a p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e p e r s o n s he w a s a p p o i n t e d t o
represent. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t o d e f e n d a n t t h e
problem h e was p r e s e n t i n g t o t h e c o u r t , inasmuch a s d e f e n -
d a n t d i d n o t want t h e s e r v i c e s of M r . Adams, and M r . F i l l n e r
was r e p r e s e n t i n g a n o t h e r p a r t y t h a t m i g h t g i v e r i s e t o a
c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t had a p p o i n t e d
a competent a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t him.
Mr. Whalen was p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g of September 1 2 ,
1975. He s t a t e d t o t h e c o u r t i n t h e p r e s e n c e of d e f e n d a n t
t h a t t h e r e were two t h i n g s t h a t d e f e n d a n t had r e q u e s t e d of
him. One, d e f e n d a n t f e l t t h a t M r . Whalen s h o u l d make a
motion f o r d i s c o v e r y and two, he f e l t t h a t M r . Whalen s h o u l d
make a motion f o r s e p a r a t e t r i a l s . Mr. Whalen e x p l a i n e d
t o t h e c o u r t t h a t he had p o i n t e d o u t t o d e f e n d a n t t h a t h e
was i n f a c t r e c e i v i n g a s e p a r a t e t r i a l and t h a t he would
n o t b e t r i e d w i t h t h e co-defendant. F u r t h e r , M r . Whalen
had gone t h r o u g h t h e e n t i r e p o l i c e f i l e and had o b t a i n e d
and had i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n c o p i e s of t h e s t a t e m e n t s of
w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s o t h a t he had a l l of t h e i n -
f o r m a t i o n t h a t any motion f o r d i s c o v e r y m i g h t r e v e a l . He
had made t h e s e c o p i e s of s t a t e m e n t s a v a i l a b l e t o d e f e n d a n t .
The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion of t h e d e f e n d a n t t o d i s -
m i s s h i s c o u n s e l and t o a p p o i n t s u b s t i t u t e c o u n s e l .
On t h e same day, September 1 2 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t Pep-
p e r l i n g presented t o t h e c o u r t h i s w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n = -,
se
o b j e c t i n g t o t h e r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e c o u n t y j a i l r e l a t i n g
t o v i s i t i n g h o u r s and i n s p e c t i o n of m a i l . On September 1 5 ,
1975, h e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t h i s w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n -
pro
-t s t a t i n g t h a t h e was b e i n g h a r a s s e d by t h e j a i l e r i n t h e
se
county j a i l . On September 1 9 , 1975, a h e a r i n g was had
b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e s p e c t i n g t h e s e p e t i t i o n s where
d e f e n d a n t was r e p r e s e n t e d by M r . Russell F i l l n e r . Upon
h e a r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by p l a i n t i f f , t h e ~ i s t r i c t
Court denied t h e p e t i t i o n s .
On September 1 9 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t came i n t o c o u r t w i t h
h i s a t t o r n e y M r . Whalen, and t h e r e M r . Whalen a d v i s e d t h e
c o u r t t h a t d e f e n d a n t was d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h M. ~ h a l e n ' s
r
s e r v i c e s and was a s k i n g for s u b s t i t u t i o n of c o u n s e l . The
c o u r t t o o k t h e m a t t e r under advisement and on t h a t day
a g a i n d e n i e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s r e q u e s t t h a t h i s c o u n s e l be d i s -
m i s s e d and t h a t s u b s t i t u t e c o u n s e l be a p p o i n t e d .
~ e a n w h i l e , t h e c o u r t s e t t h e t r i a l of t h e c a u s e f o r
September 2 4 , 1975 a t 1:30 p.m.
F u r t h e r , on September 1 9 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d
w r i t t e n motions, again pro -,
se f o r (1) a r e q u e s t f o r d i s -
m i s s a l o f h i s c o u n s e l , and ( 2 ) a r e q u e s t f o r postponement
of h i s t r i a l . On September 22, 1975, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s
l e t t e r i n s u p p o r t of h i s motion f o r postponement of h i s
trial. On September 2 4 , 1975, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a w r i t t e n
motion p r o-
- se, f o r change of venue, c h a r g i n g p r e j u d i c e
a g a i n s t him i n t h e c o u n t y , and h i s w r i t t e n r e q u e s t f o r t h e
d i s m i s s a l of t h e p r e s i d i n g judge. A motion of d e f e n d a n t
f o r w i t h d r a w a l of t h e judge was t r e a t e d a s a motion f o r
d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , and on September 2 6 , 1975, h i s motion
was g r a n t e d and t h e c a u s e was t r a n s f e r r e d t o Judge C . B.
Sande. A l l of t h e o t h e r pending p e t i t i o n s and motions o f
d e f e n d a n t were d e n i e d on September 2 4 , 1975. The t r i a l w a s
v a c a t e d and r e s e t t o October 2 1 , 1975.
On September 26, 1975, d e f e n d a n t , a g a i n a c t i n g on h i s
own, f i l e d a w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n f o r t h e d i s m i s s a l of Judge
Sande. A h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h i s motion on October 3,
1975, w i t h Judge J a c k Shanstrom p r e s i d i n g and i n t h i s c a s e ,
a f t e r a h e a r i n g of t e s t i m o n y adduced b o t h by d e f e n d a n t and
t h e c o u n t y , t h e motion f o r t h e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of Judge
Sande was d e n i e d . Mr. Whalen was p r e s e n t a t t h i s h e a r i n g
and t o l d t h e c o u r t t h a t h e had a d v i s e d d e f e n d a n t as t o t h e
p r o p e r r e q u i s i t e s f o r a n a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of a
judge i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e .
O n t h e 6 t h day of O c t o b e r , 1975, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s
motion t h r o u g h M r . Whalen f o r an o r d e r of s u b s t i t u t i o n of
Judge Sande and t h e r e a f t e r , on October 1 5 , 1975, ~ u d g e~ h a r l e s
Luedke assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e c a s e . The t r i a l of d e f e n -
d a n t was t h e n r e s e t f o r November 5 , 1975, a t 9:30 a.m.
On October 22, 1975, d e f e n d a n t had a g a i n f i l e d h i s
w r i t t e n motion f o r d i s m i s s a l of h i s c o u n s e l , and a l s o a
p e t i t i o n f o r a show c a u s e h e a r i n g , which i s i n e f f e c t a
motion f o r s u p p r e s s i o n of c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d a g a i n s t
him, and a t h i r d w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n t o t h e same e f f e c t w i t h
r e s p e c t t o t h a t evidence. These p e t i t i o n s were f i l e d w i t h -
o u t t h e a i d of h i s c o u n s e l , M r . Whalen. On October 23, 1975,
d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s motion t o d i s q u a l i f y Judge Luedke and
a t t h e same t i m e , f i l e d w i t h t h e c o u r t h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t
Judge Luedke d i s m i s s h i s c o u n s e l and a p p o i n t a n o t h e r a t t o r -
ney f o r him.
October 2 4 , 1975, Judge Luedke r e s e t t h e t r i a l of
d e f e n d a n t f o r November 4 , 1975, and on t h a t same d a t e ,
Judge J a c k Shanstrom of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t assumed
jurisdiction.
On October 29, 1975, d e f e n d a n t , t h r o u g h h i s c o u n s e l ,
moved t h e c o u r t f o r t h e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of Judge Shanstrom.
However, on November 5, 1975, a t 9:30 a . m . , t h e time set f o r
t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t and h i s c o u n s e l , M r . Whalen, a p p e a r e d be-
f o r e Judge Shanstrom and n o t i f i e d t h e judge t h a t t h e y
wished t o make a motion t o change t h e p l e a of d e f e n d a n t
from n o t g u i l t y t o g u i l t y . I n t h e meantime, b e f o r e t h e
t r i a l d a t e , M r . Whalen, a s d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l , had g i v e n
n o t i c e t o t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y of two a d d i t i o n a l a l i b i w i t -
n e s s e s r e q u i r e d by d e f e n d a n t ; M r . Whalen had r e q u e s t e d
and o b t a i n e d an o r d e r t h a t a p o t e n t i a l d e f e n s e w i t n e s s
imprisoned a t Deer Lodge be b r o u g h t t o ~ i l l i n g s o r t h e
f
t r i a l ; and h e had o b t a i n e d t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s e n t i r e
case f i l e p r i o r t o t h e d a t e set f o r t r i a l .
I n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s which o c c u r r e d on November 5, 1975,
d e f e n d a n t was p r e s e n t i n c o u r t w i t h h i s c o u n s e l , M r . Whalen.
The c o u r t a d v i s e d d e f e n d a n t t h a t b e f o r e a c c e p t i n g h i s p l e a
of g u i l t y , h e s h o u l d u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e S t a t e was r e a d y
t o p r o c e e d t o t r i a l a t t h a t t i m e and t h a t t h e w i t n e s s e s
were a l l subpoenaed and p r e s e n t and a v a i l a b l e t o go t o
t r i a l and t h a t t h e f u l l j u r y p a n e l w a s a l s o p r e s e n t , r e a d y
f o r t h e t r i a l , and t h a t any p l e a t h a t h e made would have
t o be v o l u n t a r y on h i s p a r t , f r e e l y made by him, and t h a t
h e must a g r e e t h e r e had been no c o e r c i o n o r d u r e s s , o r
t h r e a t s made t o him. To t h i s s t a t e m e n t , d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d .
The c o u r t f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t hewan'ted t h e r e c o r d t o show
t h a t h e had d i s c u s s e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l what s e n -
t e n c e h e would impose on a p l e a of g u i l t y and t h a t h e had
informed him t h a t he would impose a s e n t e n c e of 2 0 y e a r s .
Defendant s t a t e d he u n d e r s t o o d t h a t . Defendant f u r t h e r
s t a t e d t h a t no o t h e r promises had been made t o him and
t h a t he f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d what t h e s e n t e n c e would be. He
a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he understood t h a t i f it w a s h i s d e s i r e t o
go t o t r i a l , e v e r y t h i n g was a v a i l a b l e a t t h a t t i m e and t h a t
he c o u l d go t o t r i a l . Defendant s t a t e d t h a t h e would j u s t
a s soon withdraw h i s p l e a . H i s c o u n s e l t h e n reminded t h e
c o u r t t h a t i t was h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t on a p l e a b a r -
g a i n i n g b a s i s , t h e 20 y e a r s e n t e n c e imposed would r u n con-
c u r r e n t l y w i t h any t i m e t o be s e r v e d f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s v i o -
l a t i o n as a p a r o l e e . The c o u r t s a i d t h i s was h i s under-
s t a n d i n g and t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e and t h e p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n
t i m e , i f any, would r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y . Thereupon t h e ~ i s t r i c t
C o u r t a c c e p t e d t h e p l e a o f g u i l t y t h e n made by d e f e n d a n t
and imposed t h e s e n t e n c e of 2 0 y e a r s , d e f e n d a n t h a v i n g
waived h i s r i g h t f o r f u r t h e r t i m e f o r pronouncing t h e judg-
ment and s e n t e n c e .
On December 1 8 , 1975, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e c e i v e d i n
t h e m a i l from d e f e n d a n t , c o n f i n e d i n t h e p r i s o n a t Deer
Lodge, h i s r e q u e s t - forma p a u p e r i s f o r a copy o f t h e
in
t r a n s c r i p t c o n c e r n i n g h i s change o f p l e a o n November 5.
his t r a n s c r i p t was f u r n i s h e d t o d e f e n d a n t . On J a n u a r y 21,
1976, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e c e i v e d t h e m o t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ,
a p p e a r i n g p r o-e , t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a and t o va-
- s
~ a t eh e s e n t e n c e imposed upon him.
t
On J u l y 11, 1976, J u d g e Shanstrom d e n i e d t h e motion
t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a and t o v a c a t e t h e s e n t e n c e . In
i t s o r d e r of d e n i a l , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e m a t t e r o f t h e
change o f p l e a was d i s c u s s e d i n advance w i t h c o u n s e l and
t h e d e f e n d a n t , and d u r i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , d e f e n d a n t a s k e d
t h e c o u r t i f t h i s would r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h t h e s e n t e n c e
h e was p r e s e n t l y s e r v i n g and t h a t t h e a c c u s e d w a s a d v i s e d
by t h e c o u r t t h a t i t would r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y . The c o u r t
a l s o p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e change o f p l e a ,
d e f e n d a n t knew t h a t t h e j u r y was p r e s e n t i n t h e j u r y box
and a l l t h e p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s w e r e p r e s e n t and r e a d y
t o go t o t r i a l and t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e overwhelmingly p o i n t e d
to his guilt. The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e r e was no
m e r i t t o d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t e m p t t o d i s q u a l i f y him and d e n i e d
any motion t o d i s q u a l i f y him i n t h e c a s e . With r e s p e c t
t o d e f e n d a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by c o u n s e l , t h e ~ i s t r i c t
C o u r t a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o c o u n s e l of h i s c h o i c e
b u t r a t h e r t o a d e q u a t e and competent c o u n s e l . The C o u r t
s t a t e d t h a t M r . Whalen was a c o m p e t e n t , c a p a b l e and a b l e
d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y and t h a t h e a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d d e f e n d a n t
a t a l l s t a g e s of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s .
On ~ u l y 2 , 1976, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d h i s w r i t t e n n o t i c e
1
of a p p e a l , and was g i v e n p e r m i s s i o n t o proceed on h i s
a p p e a l - forma p a u p e r i s .
in
Defendant had n o t e d s e v e r a l grounds i n h i s motion of
t h e c o u r t f o r w i t h d r a w a l of h i s g u i l t y p l e a , b u t on h i s
appeal, h i s s i n g l e contention is t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court's
r e f u s a l t o d i s m i s s h i s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l and a p p o i n t f o r
him d i f f e r e n t c o u n s e l d e p r i v e d him of t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of a
f a i r t r i a l and c a u s e d him t o p l e a d g u i l t y . The p r i n c i p a l
f o r c e of h i s argument i s t h a t he d i d n o t r e c e i v e e f f e c t i v e
a s s i s t a n c e of a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l .
W have s e t o u t t h e r e p l e t i o n of motions and p e t i t i o n s
e
f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t on -s-
- h i own, even though h e was r e p r e -
s e n t e d by c o u n s e l a t t h e t i m e , t o show t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s
of h i s d e c i s i o n t o change h i s p l e a t o g u i l t y . As the D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o withdraw
h i s g u i l t y p l e a , d e f e n d a n t w a s " c e r t a i n l y w e l l aware and
w e l l a d v i s e d a b o u t h i s l e g a l r i g h t s under t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n
of t h e United S t a t e s , t h e S t a t e of Montana, and c e r t a i n l y
a l l of t h e a d d i t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a s s e t down under t h e
Miranda d e c i s i o n " .
I t i s c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d t h a t d e f e n d a n t d e c i d e d t o
change h i s p l e a - -s-
on h i own. T h e r e i s no s u g g e s t i o n h e r e
t h a t h e changed h i s p l e a on a d v i s e of h i s c o u n s e l , o r t h a t
h i s c o u n s e l m i s l e d him i n t o changing h i s p l e a .
T h e c o n t e n t i o n s of d e f e n d a n t a r e t h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e
t r i a l had been s e t , h i s c o u n s e l was n o t p r e p a r e d t o go t o
t r i a l , " d i d n o t wish t o t a k e t h e c a s e t o t r i a l " , had n o t
i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e f a c t s of t h e c a s e o r i n t e r v i e w e d t h e w i t -
nesses. Defendant t h e n c o n t e n d s t h a t , r e a l i z i n g t h e f u t i l i t y
of g o i n g t o t r i a l w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y , h e had no o t h e r c h o i c e
but to plead guilty. He now contends he was innocent of
the charge.
Assignments of error not contained in the record need
not be considered by an appellate court. See State v.
Wong Son (1943), 114 Mont. 185, 133 P.2d 761; State v.
Stevens (1946), 119 Mont. 169, 172 P.2d 299; State v.
Thomson (1976), 169 Ilont. 158, 545 P.2d 1070.
The granting or refusal of permission to withdraw a
plea of guilty and to substitute a plea of not guilty rests
in the discretion of the trial court and is subject to re-
view only where an abuse of discretion has been shown.
State v. Nance (1947), 120 Mont. 152, 184 P.2d 554; State
v. Mack (1958), 134 Mont. 301, 330 P.2d 968.
Here the record does not support defendant's conten-
tions regarding his counsel, nor does it show that the
District Court abused its discretion in denying defendant's
motion to change his plea of guilty. With respect to his
counsel, the record points the other way: the attorney
had obtained the full county attorney's file with respect
to defendant, had made that file available to defendant,
had applied to the court to procure witnesses to attend
the trial, and was present with the defendant on the morning
the trial had been set, ready to go to trial. It further
appears that defendant was not misled into pleading guilty
and he did so with full understanding as to the consequences.
State v. Nance, supra.
Since Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct.
792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, an indigent defendant in a state criminal
prosecution is entitled to have counsel appointed to repre-
sent him. The indigent's right to counsel includes the
right to have "effective assistance". State V. McElveen
( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 500, 503, 544 P.2d 820. While t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t h e r e d i d n o t r e q u i r e h e a r i n g s on t h e conten-
t i o n s of d e f e n d a n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l ,
such h e a r i n g s a r e u n n e c e s s a r y where i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e
c o n t e n t i o n s of t h e d e f e n d a n t a r e c o n t r a d i c t e d by f a c t s i n
t h e record. See United S t a t e s v. M o r r i s s e y (2nd C i r . 1972),
461 F.2d 666.
Defendant r e l i e s on F a r e t t a v. C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 422
U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562, t o s u p p o r t h i s
c o n t e n t i o n t h a t s i n c e he was d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h h i s a p p o i n t e d
c o u n s e l , h e was e n t i t l e d t o have t h e c o u r t a p p o i n t new
c o u n s e l f o r him. H i s confidence i n F a r e t t a i s misplaced.
F a r e t t a h o l d s o n l y t h a t a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t , under t h e
S i x t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i -
t u t i o n , h a s a r i g h t t o have a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l d i s m i s s e d and
t o proceed w i t h o u t c o u n s e l , s h o u l d h e wish t o do s o . Here,
d e f e n d a n t i s i n s i s t i n g t h a t b e c a u s e he was d i s s a t i s f i e d
w i t h h i s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , t h e c o u r t s h o u l d have d i s c h a r g e d
t h a t a t t o r n e y from r e p r e s e n t i n g d e f e n d a n t and a p p o i n t e d
d i f f e r e n t counsel. N c a s e s o f a r concedes t h a t r i g h t .
o
Rather, t h e cases a r e i n t h e o t h e r d i r e c t i o n . H i s right to
c o u n s e l d o e s n o t i n c l u d e t h e r i g h t t o s e l e c t a n a t t o r n e y of
h i s own c h o o s i n g , United S t a t e s v . C l a r k , (W.G. Okla. 1 9 7 6 ) ,
429 F.Supp. 89, 98, o r r e q u i r e t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r a t t o r n e y
a p p o i n t e d must be approved by t h e d e f e n d a n t , P e t i t i o n of
Hunsinger ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 445, 456 P.2d 304.
W e h o l d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t an i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t h a s a
r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , and t h a t s u c h c o u n s e l must r e n -
der "effective assistance". W f u r t h e r hold, t h a t once
e
c o u n s e l h a s been a p p o i n t e d by t h e ~ i s t k i c C o u r t , and such
t
counsel i s rendering e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e defendant,
the defendant may not have his appointed counsel dismissed
or discharged and obtain different counsel or demand that
certain counsel be appointed for him. When his appointed
counsel is rendering effective assistance, the defendant
has the choice of (1) continuing with the counsel so
appointed, or (2) having his counsel dismissed and pro-
ceeding on defendant's own, pro se. See Faretta v. Cali-
fornia, supra.
Here the defendant voluntarily pleaded guilty to the
crime charged. Since we find that he was receiving effec-
tive representation by his appointed counsel, such plea
of guilty by defendant wiped out any claim of defendant
as to defects or irregularities in the criminal proceedings
before that plea, short of constitutional dimensions. Tol-
lett v. Henderson (1973), 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36
L.Ed.2d 235. Defendant, having received the benefit of
plea bargaining in his case, is bound thereby. The State
is entitled to be assured that defendant will be held to
his bargain.
The order of the District Court denying the motion of
defendant to change his plea from guilty to not guilty is
affirmed.
We Concur:
...............................
Justices