State v. Maldonado

Summarize Case

Related Cases

No. 13883 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- JOHNNY MALDONADO, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial, District, Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Johnny Maldonado, Pro Se, Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs Submitted: November 15, 1977 Decided: -2 1 ,978 Filed: R i 2 1978 R - M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. ~ e f e n d a n t ,~ o h n n yJ o e Maldonado, a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Yellowstone County, d e n y i n g h i s p e t i t i o n f o r post-conviction r e l i e f . On September 11, 1970, d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a g u i l t y p l e a t o a c h a r g e of second d e g r e e a s s a u l t , a f e l o n y under s e c t i o n s 94-602(5) and 94-114, R.C.M. 1947. The d i s t r i c t judge d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e f o r a p e r i o d of t h r e e y e a r s . On August 25, 1971, t h e S t a t e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o r e v o k e d e f e n d a n t ' s d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e , a l l e g i n g t h a t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of h i s p r o b a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t had been c h a r g e d w i t h t h e c r i m e of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y , had l e f t t h e s t a t e and absconded from s u p e r v i s i o n , and had f a i l e d t o r e p o r t t o h i s p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r as r e q u i r e d . A t t h e September 22, 1971, h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n t o r e v o k e , d e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d t h e second and t h i r d a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e p e t i t i o n , b u t d e n i e d h e had been c h a r g e d w i t h r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n property. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e t e r m s of t h e d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n o f s e n t e n c e remain i n e f f e c t , e x c e p t t h a t d e f e n d a n t was r e q u i r e d t o s e r v e s i x months i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l o n a w o r k - r e l e a s e program. The c o u r t o r d e r was m o d i f i e d on November 29, 1971, t o p r o v i d e t h a t d e f e n d a n t s e r v e o n l y weekends i n j a i l . On December 8 , 1972, t h e S t a t e f i l e d a second p e t i t i o n t o r e v o k e d e f e n d a n t ' s d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e , a l l e g i n g d e f e n d a n t committed t h e o f f e n s e s of b u r g l a r y and c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s on October 2 5 , 1972. A t t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g h e l d on J a n u a r y 25, 1973, t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t when p o l i c e responded t o a b u r g l a r y a l a r m a t a l o c a l hardware s t o r e a t a b o u t 2:00 a.m., October 25, 1972, d e f e n d a n t w a s found i n s i d e t h e s t o r e w i t h a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l , n e a r a gun c a s e which was broken and s e v e r a l guns removed. Upon r e c e i v i n g t h i s e v i d e n c e a t t h e J a n u a r y 25, 1973, r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t revoked t h e o r i g i n a l l y d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e on t h e second d e g r e e a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n , and s e n t e n c e d defend- a n t t o f i v e y e a r s and n i n e months i n t h e Montana s t a t e prison. On J u l y 25, 1975, a f t e r s e r v i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y one-half of h i s s e n t e n c e on t h e second d e g r e e a s s a u l t c h a r g e , d e f e n d a n t was p a r o l e d . While s t i l l on p a r o l e , on A p r i l 4 , 1976, a B i l l i n g s p o l i c e o f f i c e r a r r e s t e d d e f e n d a n t i n a l o c a l b a r on a c h a r g e o f c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e Yellowstone County a t t o r n e y l e a v e t o f i l e a n Information, charging defendant with carrying a concealed weapon w i t h i n t h e c i t y l i m i t s of B i l l i n g s , Montana, i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 94-8-210, R.C.M. 1947. The c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f i l e d a n o t i c e t o i n c r e a s e punishment p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 95-1506, R.C.M. 1947, a l l e g i n g d e f e n d a n t was a p r i o r c o n v i c t e d f e l o n under s e c t i o n 95-1507, R.C.M. 1947, due t o h i s p r e v i o u s c o n v i c t i o n f o r second d e g r e e a s s a u l t . I n h i s a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of t h e I n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t w i t h c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon, t h e d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y a l l e g e d t h a t a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12:30 a.m., A p r i l 4 , 1976, O f f i c e r H a t f i e l d o f t h e B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Department was f l a g g e d down by a n anonymous p e r s o n and informed t h a t d e f e n d a n t was i n s i d e t h e Empire Bar i n B i l l i n g s , c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon. A f f i a n t s t a t e d O f f i c e r H a t f i e l d and O f f i c e r Trimbo e n t e r e d t h e b a r and o b s e r v e d d e f e n d a n t ; upon s e a r c h i n g d e f e n d a n t t h e o f f i c e r s d i s c o v e r e d and s e i z e d a .38 c a l i b e r Smith & Wesson p i s t o l w i t h a two i n c h b a r r e l , which d e f e n d a n t was c a r r y i n g i n a s h o u l d e r h o l s t e r c o n c e a l e d by h i s brown l e a t h e r j a c k e t . These f a c t s a l l e g e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t w e r e l a r g e l y c o r r o b o r a t e d by d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f a t h i s a r r a i g n m e n t on t h e c o n c e a l e d weapon c h a r g e . Defendant a d m i t t e d he was c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d and l o a d e d .38 c a l i b e r Smith & Wesson r e v o l v e r i n a s h o u l d e r h o l s t e r w h i l e he was i n t h e Empire Bar. Defendant s t a t e d t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d h e was s u b j e c t , a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r , t o i n c r e a s e d punishment up t o 100 y e a r s imprisonment. Defendant p l e a d e d g u i l t y and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s e n t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t t o s e r v e twenty y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e prison. On October 1 2 , 1976, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a 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 , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 95-2601, R.C.M. 1947, i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Yellowstone County. Defendant r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on h i s a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s A p r i l 26, 1977, o r d e r denying p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n relief: 1. Did s e c t i o n 95-1507, R.C.M. 1947, t h e p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s t a t u t e , as a p p l i e d t o d e f e n d a n t , v i o l a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s a f e g u a r d s d e a l i n g w i t h e x p o s t f a c t o laws and e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n ? 2. Is s e c t i o n 95-1507 u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l under A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 28, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ? 3. 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 i n r e v o k i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e on t h e second d e g r e e a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n ? 4. Did t h e c o u r t ' s m i s t a k e n b e l i e f i n s e n t e n c i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t had e n t e r e d h i s g u i l t y p l e a t o t h e second d e g r e e a s s a u l t c h a r g e on J a n u a r y 25, 1973 r a t h e r t h a n on September 11, 1970, c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r ? 5. Was s e c t i o n 94-8-210, R.C.M. 1947, as i n e f f e c t when d e f e n d a n t committed t h e c r i m e of c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon, a n u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague s t a t u t e ? 6. Was d e f e n d a n t s u f f i c i e n t l y i n f o r m e d , p r i o r t o e n t e r i n g h i s p l e a , of t h e p o s s i b l e s e n t e n c e s he c o u l d r e - c e i v e a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r upon c o n v i c t i o n of c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon? 7. 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 i n f i n d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t was n o t d e n i e d e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l ? 8. W a s t h e twenty y e a r s e n t e n c e d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e d s o e x c e s s i v e and d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e o f f e n s e a s t o c o n s t i - t u t e c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment? On September 11, 1970, when d e f e n d a n t p l e a d g u i l t y t o second d e g r e e a s s a u l t , a f e l o n y , Montana's p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 94-4713, R.C.M. 1947, a l l o w e d a d i s t r i c t judge t o s e n t e n c e a d e f e n d a n t t o a maximum s e n t e n c e o f t e n y e a r s imprisonment f o r a s u b s e q u e n t f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n of c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon. S e c t i o n 94-4713, was r e p e a l e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1973 and r e p l a c e d w i t h t h e p r e s e n t s e c t i o n 95-1507. Defendant committed t h e c a r r y i n g of a c o n c e a l e d weapon o f f e n s e on A p r i l 4 , 1976, when s e c t i o n 95- 1507, was i n e f f e c t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t judge s e n t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t t o twenty y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r under s e c t i o n 95-1507. Under s e c t i o n 95- 1 5 0 7 ( 2 ) , t h e maximum p e n a l t y f o r c o n v i c t i o n of t h e f e l o n y of c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon, f o r o n e who h a s " p r e v i o u s l y been c o n v i c t e d of a f e l o n y " i s 100 y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n . Defendant a l l e g e s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e f e l o n y second d e g r e e a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n o c c u r r e d p r i o r t o t h e enactment of s e c t i o n 95-1507, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s u s e of t h e a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n t o i n c r e a s e punishment under s e c t i o n 95-1507 on t h e f e l o n y o f c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon c h a r g e c o n s t i t u t e d a n e x p o s t f a c t o law. Defendant c o n t e n d s h e c o u l d b e c o n s t i - t u t i o n a l l y s e n t e n c e d o n l y under s e c t i o n 94-4713, the persistent f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s t a t u t e i n e f f e c t when h e committed t h e second d e g r e e a s s a u l t . Defendant m i s c o n s t r u e s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o h i b i t i o n s a g a i n s t e x p o s t f a c t o laws. Both t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s p r o h i b i t t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e from p a s s i n g e x p o s t f a c t o laws. A r t i c l e I , Section 10, United S t a t e s . C o n s t i t u t i o n ; A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 31, 1972 Montana Constitution. Ex p o s t f a c t o laws a r e p r o h i b i t e d on t h e t h e o r y no one s h o u l d b e punished f o r c o n d u c t which t h e law d i d n o t g i v e him advance warning was c r i m i n a l . Section 95-1507, was e n a c t e d i n 1973 p r i o r t o d e f e n d a n t ' s commission of t h e c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon f e l o n y i n 1976. The law d i d n o t p u n i s h d e f e n d a n t f o r p a s t c o n d u c t , b u t merely n o t i - f i e d d e f e n d a n t h e was s u b j e c t t o i n c r e a s e d punishment, i f h e i n t h e f u t u r e committed a n a d d i t i o n a l f e l o n y crime. In r e j e c t i n g a claim s i m i l a r t o defendant's, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : "Nor do we t h i n k t h e f a c t t h a t o n e of the convictions t h a t entered i n t o the calcula- t i o n s by which p e t i t i o n e r became a f o u r t h o f f e n d e r o c c u r r e d b e f o r e t h e Act w a s p a s s e d , makes t h e Act i n v a l i d l y r e t r o a c t i v e * * * . The s e n t e n c e a s a * * * h a b i t u a l c r i m i n a l i s n o t t o be viewed as e i t h e r a new jeopardy o r a d d i t i o n a l p e n a l t y f o r t h e e a r l i e r crimes. It i s a s t i f f e n e d penalty f o r t h e l a t e s t crime, which i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be a n a g g r a v a t e d o f - f e n s e because a r e p e t i t i v e one." Gryger v. Burke, ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 334 U.S. 728, 732, 68 S.Ct. 1256, 92 L.ed. 1683. See a l s o : McDonald v. Massachusetts, ( 1 9 0 1 ) , 180 U.S. 311, Defendant c o n t e n d s s e c t i o n 95-1507 v i o l a t e s t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n and due p r o c e s s c l a u s e s of t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment because only a minority of r e p e a t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s a r e p r o s e c u t e d under t h e p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s t a t u t e . Defendant a l l e g e s t h a t s e c t i o n 95-1507 i s i n g e n e r a l uncon- s t i t u t i o n a l l y s e l e c t i v e l y a p p l i e d , and w a s s e l e c t i v e l y a p p l i e d i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , due t o t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s a n i m o s i t y toward d e f e n d a n t and d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l . Nothing i n t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t s d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t he w a s singled o u t f o r persistent felonyprosecutiondue t o the p r o s e c u t o r ' s f e e l i n g s of p e r s o n a l enmity. Nor d o e s a showing of s e l e c t i v e e n f o r c e m e n t of a c r i m i n a l law, w i t h o u t more, constitute a constitutional violation. "* * * t h e conscious e x e r c i s e of some s e l e c t i v i t y i n e n f o r c e m e n t i s n o t i n i t s e l f a f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n " a b s e n t a n a l l e g a t i o n and showing t h a t "* * * t h e s e l e c t i o n w a s d e l i b e r a t e l y based upon a n u n j u s t i f i a b l e s t a n d a r d s u c h a s r a c e , r e l i g i o n , o r other arbitrary classification * * *" such a s sex, o r t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e F i r s t Amendment r i g h t t o f r e e speech. Oyler v. B o l e s , ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 368 U.S. 448, 456, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L ed 2d 446, 453. Defendant n e x t c l a i m s t h a t , b e c a u s e s e c t i o n 95-1507 subjects repeat felony offenders t o potentially s t i f f e r s e n t e n c e s t h a n f i r s t t i m e f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s , t h e law v i o l a t e s t h a t p o r t i o n of A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 28, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , which p r o v i d e s t h a t " F u l l r i g h t s a r e r e s t o r e d by t e r m i n a t i o n of s t a t e s u p e r v i s i o n f o r any o f f e n s e a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e . " The s u c c e s s of d e f e n d a n t ' s argument n e c e s s a r i l y depends upon whether t h e r e f e r e n c e i n A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 28, t o " f u l l r i g h t s " i n c l u d e s a " r i g h t " of a p r i o r f e l o n y o f f e n d e r t o n o t have h i s p r i o r o f f e n s e c o n s i d e r e d , when s e n t e n c i n g him on a subsequent felony. The t r a n s c r i p t of p r o c e e d i n g s of t h e Montana c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n v e n t i o n c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h e Committee of t h e whole, i n recommending t h e A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 28 c l a u s e on r e s t o r a - t i o n of f u l l p r i s o n e r ' s r i g h t s , w a s concerned t h a t no o b s t a c l e s p r e v e n t t h e e x - c o n v i c t from becoming a c o n t r i b u t i n g and p a r t i c i p a t i n g member of t h e community. Speaking on b e h a l f of t h e committee, o n e d e l e g a t e s t a t e d t h a t t h e e x - p r i s o n e r , no l o n g e r under s t a t e s u p e r v i s i o n , " * * * s h o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f a l l c i v i l and p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e r i g h t t o v o t e , h o l d o f f i c e , and e n t e r o c c u p a t i o n s which r e q u i r e s t a t e l i c e n s i n g . " Vol. 7 , Const. Convention T r a n s c r i p t 5550 (remarks of D e l e g a t e James). A main c o n c e r n of t h e d e l e g a t e s was t h a t e x - c o n v i c t s n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y b e p r e c l u d e d from p r a c t i c i n g s t a t e - l i c e n s e d p r o f e s s i o n s . Vol. 7, C o n s t . Convention T r a n s c r i p t 5624-26 (remarks of D e l e g a t e s Habedank and Campbell). See a l s o : M i l l e r v. Carter, (7th C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) , 547 F.2d 1314, 1328-29, a f f ' d . (1978), U.S. , 98 S.Ct. 786, 54 L ed 2d 603. The " f u l l r i g h t s " language of A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 28 d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a " r i g h t " t o be s e n t e n c e d f o r a f e l o n y without regard t o p r i o r felony convictions. Having a p r i o r felony conviction w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r i n c r e a s i n g punish- ment on a s u b s e q u e n t f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n d o e s n o t hamper r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of t h e e x - c o n v i c t o r d i m i n i s h h i s c i v i l o r political rights. I f t h e e x - c o n v i c t obeys t h e l a w , a s a l l c i t i z e n s a r e required t o do, f o r f i v e y e a r s subsequent t o h i s f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n o r r e l e a s e from p r i s o n , t h e p r i o r f e l o n y may n o t be used t o i n c r e a s e punishment under s e c t i o n 95-1507 f o r a s u b s e q u e n t f e l o n y . Rather than involving any c i v i l o r p o l i t i c a l " r i g h t " , i n c r e a s i n g t h e s e n t e n c e of a p e r s i s t e n t felony offender i s e n t i r e l y consistent with the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandate t h a t "Laws f o r t h e punishment of c r i m e s h a l l be founded on t h e p r i n c i p l e s of p r e v e n t i o n and reformation.* * *" A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 28, 1972 Montana Constitution. " * * * P e r s i s t e n c e i n c r i m e and f a i l u r e of earlier discipline effectively t o deter or r e f o r m j u s t i f y more d r a s t i c t r e a t m e n t . * * * For t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of s e n t e n c e s , j u s t i c e g e n e r a l l y r e q u i r e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of more t h a n t h e p a r t i c u l a r a c t s by which t h e c r i m e was committed and t h a t t h e r e be t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e o f f e n s e t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e c h a r a c t e r and p r o p e n s i t i e s of t h e o f f e n d e r . H i s p a s t may b e t a k e n t o i n d i c a t e h i s p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s and t e n d e n c i e s and s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o s u g g e s t t h e p e r i o d of r e s t r a i n t and t h e k i n d of d i s c i p l i n e t h a t o u g h t t o be imposed upon him." Pennsylvania e x r e l . S u l l i v a n v . Ashe, ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 302 U.S. 51, 54-55, 58 S.Ct. 59, 82 L.ed. 43. Defendant a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t no p r o p e r c a u s e was shown t o r e v o k e t h e d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n on t h e second d e g r e e a s s a u l t c h a r g e , and t h e a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n c o u l d t h e r e f o r e n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a p r i o r f e l o n y t o i n c r e a s e h i s punish- ment on t h e c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon c h a r g e . The f a c t s adduced a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e a r i n g on t h e S t a t e ' s second p e t i t i o n t o r e v o k e t h e d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e show t h a t on October 25, 1972, a t 2:00 a . m . , t h e p o l i c e apprehended d e f e n d a n t and a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l i n s i d e a hardware s t o r e , where a gun c a s e was broken and s e v e r a l guns removed. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t had ample c a u s e t o r e v o k e t h e d e f e r r e d imposi- t i o n of s e n t e n c e . Defendant i s n o t c o r r e c t i n h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had no a u t h o r i t y a f t e r t h e f i r s t r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g t o impose a j a i l term a s a n a d d i t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n of h i s c o n t i n u e d d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e . Defendant c o n t e n d s t h i s C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n S t a t e v . Drew, ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 2 1 4 , 490 P.2d 230, e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a t e r m i n j a i l may n e v e r b e imposed a s a c o n d i t i o n of a d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e . However, t h i s C o u r t i n D r e w merely s t a t e d t h a t a t r i a l judge may n o t a c t u a l l y impose a s e n t e n c e and d e f e r t h e i m p o s i t i o n of p a r t of t h a t s e n t e n c e . The d i s t r i c t judge may, however, d e f e r i m p o s i t i o n of s e n t e n c e and make a j a i l t e r m a c o n d i - t i o n of p r o b a t i o n . "* * * There i s a v a l i d d i s t i n c t i o n under t h e law i n g r a n t i n g a d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n upon c o n d i t i o n s , r a t h e r t h a n imposing a j a i l s e n t e n c e w i t h c o n d i t i o n s . " S t a t e e x r e l . Woodbury v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 1 2 8 , 136, 495 P.2d 1119. See a l s o : S t a t e v. Thorsness, ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 321, 528 P.2d 692. Defendant n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s e n t e n c e i s i n v a l i d b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c t judge s e n t e n c e d him under t h e m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t p l e a d g u i l t y on J a n u a r y 25, 1973, t o second d e g r e e a s s a u l t . Defendant d i d , however, on September 11, 1970, p l e a d g u i l t y t o second d e g r e e a s s a u l t . Although d e f e n d a n t emphasizes t h a t h e d i d n o t on J a n u a r y 25, 1973, p l e a d g u i l t y t o a b u r g l a r y c h a r g e , t h e f a c t t h a t he was found by p o l i c e a t 2:00 a.m. i n a hardware s t o r e where t h e b u r g l a r a l a r m had sounded and guns had been removed from a broken d i s p l a y c a s e , w a s s u f f i c i e n t cause t o revoke d e f e n d a n t ' s d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e o n t h e second d e g r e e a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n and was v a l i d l y used t o i n c r e a s e d e f e n d a n t ' s punishment f o r h i s subsequent felony conviction. Defendant a l s o asserts t h a t s e c t i o n 94-8-210 the c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon s t a t u t e a s i n e f f e c t when h e committed t h e c r i m e , g a v e p r o s e c u t o r s d i s c r e t i o n t o c h a r g e t h e t r a n s a c t i o n a s a f e l o n y o r a misdemeanor, gave no j u d i - c i a l g u i d e l i n e s as t o when t h e c h a r g e s s h o u l d be f e l o n y o r misdemeanor, and t h e r e f o r e , was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague. Defendants c i t e s O l s e n v . Delmore, ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 48 ~ a s h . 2 d 545, 295 P.2d 324, 325, and S t a t e v . Pirkey, ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 203 O r . 697, 281 P.2d 698, where t h e Supreme C o u r t s of b o t h w a s h i n g t o n and Oregon d e c l a r e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u t e s which d i d n o t d i s t i n g u i s h when i d e n t i c a l c o n d u c t s h o u l d be c h a r g e d by p r o s e c u t o r s as f e l o n i e s o r misdemeanors. I n 1976 when d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r , s e c t i o n 94-8-210 provided t h a t a person c o n v i c t e d of c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon " * * * s h a l l be punished by a f i n e n o t e x c e e d i n g f i v e hundred d o l l a r s o r by imprisonment i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l f o r a p e r i o d n o t e x c e e d i n g s i x months, o r by b o t h s u c h f i n e and imprisonment, o r may b e punished by imprisonment i n t h e s t a t e p e n i t e n t i a r y f o r a period n o t exceeding f i v e years." Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e same o f f e n s e may be p u n i s h e d a s e i t h e r a f e l o n y o r a misdemeanor, t h e r u l e and r a t i o n a l e o f O l s e n , P i r k e y and s i m i l a r c a s e s r e q u i r e t h i s C o u r t t o r u l e t h a t s e c t i o n 94-8-210 is unconstitutional. The d e f e n d a n t i n Olsen was c o n v i c t e d under a c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon s t a t u t e which c o n t a i n e d a p e n a l t y c l a u s e worded v e r y s i m i l a r l y t o t h e p e n a l t y c l a u s e of s e c t i o n 94-8- 210. The c r i m e i n O l s e n was "* * * p u n i s h a b l e by a f i n e of n o t more t h a n f i v e hundred d o l l a r s o r imprisonment i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l f o r n o t more t h a n one y e a r o r b o t h , - by or imprisonment i n t h e p e n i t e n t i a r y f o r n o t less t h a n o n e y e a r n o r more t h a n t e n y e a r s . " Olsen v . Delmore, 295 P.2d 325. I n Washington, t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a c r i m e a s a f e l o n y o r a misdemeanor was d e p e n d e n t upon t h e p o t e n t i a l punishment, and n o t upon t h e punishment which t h e o f f e n d e r a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d upon c o n v i c t i o n . C r i m e s p u n i s h a b l e by d e a t h o r imprisonment i n t h e s t a t e p e n i t e n t i a r y were f e l o n i e s ; c r i m e s p u n i s h a b l e by f i n e s of l e s s t h a n $250, O r by imprisonment i n a c o u n t y j a i l f o r n o t more t h a n n i n e t y d a y s , were misdemeanors. The v i c e of t h e s t a t u t e i n O l s e n , and of a s i m i l a r s t a t u t e i n P i r k e y , was t h a t i t a u t h o r i z e d p r o s e c u t i n g o f f i c i a l s t o c h a r g e i d e n t i c a l c o n d u c t by d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n s a s e i t h e r a f e l o n y o r a misdemeanor. This unbridled p r o s e c u t o r i a l d i s c r e t i o n v i o l a t e s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e of e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e laws. "* * * the s t a t u t e i t s e l f furnishes no c r i t e r i o n by which t o d e t e r m i n e when a n a c c u s e d i s t o be c h a r g e d w i t h f e l o n y , and when w i t h a misdemeanor * * *." (Emphasis added.) S t a t e v . P i r k e y , 281 P.2d 702. Although t h e s e c t i o n 94-8-210 penalty clause i n e f f e c t when d e f e n d a n t committed t h e crime was worded s i m i l a r l y t o t h e Washington s t a t u t e i n O l s e n , Montana's law d o e s n o t s u f f e r from t h e same c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n f i r m i t y . I n Montana, t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o c l a s s i f y an offense a s a felony o r a misdemeanor b e l o n g s t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t and n o t t o t h e prosecuting o f f i c i a l . Except f o r t h e l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n p u r p o s e s of s e c t i o n 94-1-105, R.C.M. 1947, t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of an o f f e n s e a s a f e l o n y o r a s a misdemeanor depends e n t i r e l y upon t h e a c t u a l s e n t e n c e imposed by t h e t r i a l c o u r t upon c o n v i c t i o n . S e c t i o n 94-2-101 ( 1 5 ) ( 3 1 ) , i n 1975, r e a d : " ( 1 5 ) ' F e l o n y ' means a n o f f e n s e i n which - the s e n t e n c e imposed upon c o n v i c t i o n i s d e a t h o r imprisonment i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n f o r any t e r m e x c e e d i n g o n e (1) y e a r . " (Emphasis added. ) " ( 3 1 ) 'Misdemeanor' means a n o f f e n s e i n which t h e s e n t e n c e imposed upon c o n v i c t i o n i s imprisonment i n t h e county j a i l f o r any t e r m , - o r f i n e , o r b o t h , o r t h e s e n t e n c e imposed i s imprisonment i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n f o r any term of o n e y e a r o r l e s s . " (Emphasis added.) Where t h e power t o c l a s s i f y a c r i m e a s a f e l o n y o r a misdemeanor i s g i v e n t o t h e judge, through t h e sentence he imposes, r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e p r o s e c u t o r , t h e r e i s no e q u a l protection violation. Gibson v . D e l l , (9th C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) , 443 F.2d 75. See: D a l o i a v. Rhay ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 5 8 ) , 252 F.2d 768, 770. The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n was s e t f o r t h by Mr. J u s t i c e Black i n h i s d i s s e n t i n B e r r a v . United S t a t e s , ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 351 U.S. 131, 1 4 0 , 76 S.Ct. 685, 100 L.ed. 1013: " * * * Of c o u r s e i t i s t r u e t h a t under o u r s y s t e m Congress may v e s t t h e judge and j u r y w i t h broad power t o s a y how much punishment s h a l l b e imposed f o r a p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n s e . But i t i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t t o v e s t s u c h powers i n a p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y . A judge and j u r y a c t under p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s c a r e f u l l y p r e - s c r i b e d t o p r o t e c t t h e l i b e r t y of t h e i n d i - vidual. T h e i r judgments and v e r d i c t s a r e r e a c h e d a f t e r a p u b l i c t r i a l i n which a defend- a n t h a s t h e r i g h t t o be r e p r e s e n t e d by a n attorney. No s u c h p r o t e c t i o n s a r e thrown around d e c i s i o n s by a p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y . " * *" 351 U.S. 140. Nor w a s t h e s t a t u t e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y vague b e c a u s e t h e judge c o u l d s e n t e n c e t h e o f f e n s e a s e i t h e r a f e l o n y o r a misdemeanor, w i t h o u t s t a t u t o r y g u i d e l i n e s a s t o when e a c h g r a d e o f s e n t e n c e s h o u l d be imposed. One of t h e p u r p o s e s of t h e 1973 Montana C r i m i n a l Code was t o v e s t wide s e n t e n c i n g d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e t r i a l judge who i s f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e c h a r a c t e r and p a s t r e c o r d of t h e d e f e n d a n t , and w i t h t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . Although t h e p e n a l t y p r o v i s i o n of t h e c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon s t a t u t e , a s i t was i n e f f e c t when d e f e n d a n t committed t h e c r i m e , was n o t a r t f u l l y p h r a s e d , i t meant no more t h a n t h a t one found g u i l t y of t h e s e c t i o n c o u l d b e s e n t e n c e d t o imprisonment i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n f o r a term n o t t o exceed f i v e y e a r s . The s e n t e n c i n g c l a u s e , t h e r e f o r e , was no d i f f e r e n t from o t h e r s e c t i o n s o f t h e c r i m i n a l code which l i k e w i s e v e s t t h e - s e n t e n c i n g judge w i t h t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o impose a misdemeanor o r a f e l o n y s e n t e n c e , a s t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c a s e warrant. See, e.g., s e c t i o n 94-6-104, R.C.M. 1947 ( a r s o n s e n t e n c e n o t t o exceed twenty y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t ) ; s e c t i o n 94-6-204, R.C.M. 1947 ( b u r g l a r y s e n t e n c e n o t t o exceed t e n y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t ) ; s e c t i o n 94-7-202, R.C.M. 1947 ( p e r j u r y s e n t e n c e n o t t o exceed t e n y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t ) . Defendant c o n t e n d s h e w a s n o t informed t h a t , upon c o n v i c t i o n of c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon, h e m i g h t have r e c e i v e d a misdemeanor r a t h e r t h a n a f e l o n y s e n t e n c e . Defendant a s s e r t s had h e r e a l i z e d t h a t h e m i g h t have been c o n v i c t e d of o n l y a misdemeanor, h e would have s t o o d t r i a l r a t h e r than plead g u i l t y . To be v a l i d , d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t y p l e a must have been e n t e r e d v o l u n t a r i l y and u n d e r s t a n d i n g l y . Boykin v . Alabama, ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 395 U.S. 238, 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L ed 2d 274; S t a t e v. Doty, (1977), Mont. , 566 P.2d 1388, 1391, 3 4 St.Rep. 731. A p l e a of g u i l t y i s i n v a l i d as n o t h a v i n g been u n d e r s t a n d i n g l y e n t e r e d i f t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t informed o f t h e maximum p o t e n t i a l p e n a l t y upon c o n v i c t i o n . Tucker v . United S t a t e s , (5th C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) , 409 F.2d 1291, 1295. In t h i s c a s e , d e f e n d a n t was p r o p e r l y informed of t h e maximum p o t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e upon a g u i l t y p l e a . A g u i l t y p l e a i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n v a l i d i f a d e f e n d a n t i s n o t informed of minimum p e n a l t i e s upon c o n v i c t i o n . Defendant m i s c o n s t r u e s Montana law when h e s t a t e s t h a t h e d i d n o t r e a l i z e he m i g h t have been c o n v i c t e d of a misdemeanor r a t h e r t h a n a f e l o n y . Defendant c o u l d have been c o n v i c t e d a t t r i a l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o n l y o f t h e o f f e n s e of c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon. A s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , t h e o f f e n s e assumes t h e c h a r a c t e r of misdemeanor o r f e l o n y o n l y a f t e r t h e judge h a s imposed sentence. A c o n v i c t i o n a f t e r t r i a l o r a c o n v i c t i o n due t o a g u i l t y p l e a t h e r e f o r e had no e f f e c t upon whether t h e o f f e n s e would s u b s e q u e n t l y be c l a s s i f i e d a s a misdemeanor o r a f e l o n y , and t h e f a i l u r e t o i n f o r m d e f e n d a n t of t h e minimum s e n t e n c e d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of h i s g u i l t y plea. Defendant n e x t a l l e g e s h e was d e n i e d e f f e c t i v e a s s i s - t a n c e of c o u n s e l when h e e n t e r e d h i s p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h e c h a r g e of c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon. This Court has s t a t e d t h e s t a n d a r d f o r e v a l u a t i n g a n inadequacy of c o u n s e l claim i s t h e " f a r c e and sham t e s t " . S t a t e v . McElveen, ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 500, 504, 544 P.2d 820; S t a t e v . M i l l e r , (1977) I Mont. , 568 P.2d 1 3 0 , 34 St.Rep. 838. I n e x p l a i n i n g t h e s p e c i f i c s of t h i s t e s t , t h i s C o u r t has held t h a t t o render e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e within t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e S i x t h Amendment, U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i - t u t i o n , and A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 24, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , c o u n s e l must a t t e m p t t o " d i s c o v e r a l l t h e f a c t s and circum- s t a n c e s of t h e crime" t h r o u g h " t h o r o u g h i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n s and e v e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t h e c r i m e . " S t a t e v . McElveen, 168 Mont. 506. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by c o u n s e l must a l s o i n c l u d e a d e q u a t e p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n f e r e n c e w i t h h i s c l i e n t . S t a t e v . McElveen, 168 Mont. 504, q u o t i n g W i l l i a m s v . B e t o , (5th C i r . 1 9 6 5 ) , 354 F.2d 698, 704. Adequate c o n f e r e n c e w i t h t h e c l i e n t i n c l u d e s a d v i s i n g t h e c l i e n t of h i s r i g h t s and e l i c i t i n g from t h e c l i e n t a l l m a t t e r s of d e f e n s e , o r a s c e r t a i n i n g t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s no d e f e n s e . See: C o l e s v . Peyton, ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 6 8 ) , 389 F.2d 2 2 4 , 226, c e r t . d e n . , 393 U.S. 849, 89 S.Ct. 8 0 , 2 1 L ed 2d120 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Defendant c l a i m s t h a t c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e b e c a u s e counsel d i d not attempt t o suppress t h e evidence obtained i n a s e a r c h of d e f e n d a n t , b e c a u s e c o u n s e l d i d n o t make any i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e c o n c e a l e d weapons s t a t u t e , and b e c a u s e c o u n s e l made no i n v e s t i g a t i o n a s t o why d e f e n d a n t was c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon. The d e c i s i o n s of whether t o c h a l l e n g e t h e c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l i t y of a s t a t u t e o r t o move t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e a r e m a t t e r s of l e g a l judgment. I n t h i s c a s e , we h o l d t h e c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon s t a t u t e was c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . D e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y s t a t e d i n a n a f f i d a v i t t h a t d e f e n d a n t had e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e p o l i c e had a u t h o r i t y t o s e a r c h d e f e n d a n t a s a c o n d i t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s p a r o l e on t h e second d e g r e e a s s a u l t charge. Defendant c l a i m s he had no c r i m i n a l i n t e n t b e c a u s e t h e r e a s o n h e w a s c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon was t o p r o t e c t h i m s e l f from a t t a c k i n t h e b a r t h a t h e w a s i n . Concealing a p i s t o l o r r e v o l v e r on h i s p e r s o n w i t h i n t h e c i t y l i m i t s , however, was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o c o n v i c t under s e c t i o n 94-8-210. The r e a s o n s f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n c e a l i n g t h e weapon were i n t h i s c a s e i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e of c r i m i n a l i n t e n t , though t h o s e r e a s o n s m i g h t have been a r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n sentencing. D e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l , i n a n a f f i d a v i t , swore t h a t h e c o n s u l t e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t a s t o t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e and p o s s i b l e d e f e n s e s , a r r a n g e d t o t a k e s t a t e m e n t s from prospec- t i v e w i t n e s s e s , had c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h v a r i o u s p e r s o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a s e , c o n s i d e r e d and r e j e c t e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of s u b m i t t i n g a motion t o s u p p r e s s , d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e w a s no sound d e f e n s e , and f i n a l l y a d v i s e d d e f e n d a n t t h e r e was a l m o s t no chance of s u c c e s s a t t r i a l . Defense c o u n s e l t h e n p l e a b a r g a i n e d w i t h t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y and a d v i s e d d e f e n d a n t t o e n t e r a g u i l t y p l e a i n exchange f o r a p r o s e c u - t i o n r e q u e s t f o r a twenty y e a r s e n t e n c e . Subsequent t o s e n t e n c i n g , d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y made a motion t o v a c a t e t h e twenty y e a r s e n t e n c e , s u p p o r t e d by a memorandum of law. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t by h i s a t t o r n e y was e f f e c t i v e w i t h i n t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t f o r t h i n S t a t e v . McElveen, s u p r a . The f i n a l c o n t e n t i o n of d e f e n d a n t i s t h a t t h e twenty y e a r s e n t e n c e he r e c e i v e d was c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment p r o s c r i b e d by t h e E i g h t h Amendment, U n i t e d S t a t e s ~ o n s t i t u t i o n , and by A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 22, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h e s e n t e n c e i s e x c e s s i v e and d i s p r o - p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e c r i m e o f c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon, a crime which h e a l l e g e s u s u a l l y b r i n g s o n l y a f i n e , a s h o r t j a i l s e n t e n c e , o r b o t h s u c h f i n e and j a i l s e n t e n c e . Defendant n o t e s t h a t t h e maximum s e n t e n c e u n d e r s e c t i o n 94-8-210 for t h e o f f e n s e o f c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon i s f i v e y e a r s . D e f e n d a n t m i s c o n s t r u e s t h e o f f e n s e f o r which h e was c h a r g e d . A l t h o u g h h e w a s a r r e s t e d and c o n v i c t e d o f c a r r y i n g a c o n c e a l e d weapon, h e w a s s e n t e n c e d n o t a s a f i r s t - t i m e felony v i o l a t o r of t h e criminal l a w s , but a s a p e r s i s t e n t felony offender. I t i s i n d i s p u t a b l e t h a t a s e n t e n c e , though i t b e w i t h i n t h e maximum s e n t e n c e a l l o w e d by s t a t u t e , may b e s o e x c e s s i v e and d i s p r o p r o t i o n a t e t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e o f f e n s e a s t o c o n s t i t u t e c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t . Weems v. United S t a t e s , ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 217 U.S. 349, 367, 30 S . C t . 544, 54 L.ed. 793; O ' N e i l v . Vermont, ( 1 8 9 2 ) , 1 4 4 U.S. 323, 1 2 S.Ct. 693, 36 L.ed. 450 ( F i e l d , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . " * * * t h e C r u e l and Unusual Punishment C l a u s e * * * p r o s c r i b e s punishment g r o s s l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e crime* * * ." Ingraham v . W r i g h t , (1977), 430 U.S. 651, 667, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L e d 2d 711, 727, 728. M i n d f u l o f t h i s l i m i t a t i o n , w e n o t e , however " * * * t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t a s e n t e n c e w i t h i n t h e maximum a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e i s n o t c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t . " S t a t e v. i Karahthos, ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 5 8 Mont. 461, 468, 493 P.2d 326. C The t w e n t y y e a r s e n t e n c e which d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e d was w e l l w i t h i n t h e o n e hundred y e a r maximum s e n t e n c e a u t h o r i z e d by s e c t i o n 95-1507, t h e p e r s i s t e n t felony offender s t a t u t e u n d e r which d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d . The punishment p r o s c r i b e d was n o t g r o s s l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e offense. Though the maximum penalty for the first felony offense of carrying a concealed weapon is five years imprison- ment, defendant had previously been convicted of another felony. Persistent felony offender statutes " * * * prescribe such penalties as may be deemed appropriate in view of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, taking in view his past conduct * * * taking into considera- tion past offenses committed by the accused as a circumstance of aggravation * * * ." Carlesi v. New York, (1914), 233 u.S. 51, 59, 34 S.Ct. 576, 58 L.ed. 843, 849. In this case, defendant's previous felony conviction was for second degree assault, a violent crime against another human being. Defendant's second felony conviction was for carrying a concealed weapon in a shoulder holster concealed by a leather jacket. The concealed weapon was a .38 caliber pistol with a two inch barrel, a weapon which if used on another individual could likely cause serious bodily injury or death. Defendant committed the carrying a con- cealed weapon offense less than nine months after being paroled on the felony assault crime. Given these circum- stances, we cannot say the twenty year sentence was so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The order of the District Court denying defendant's petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed. We Concur: