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: