State Ex Rel. Lintz v. District Cou

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: June 29, 1972
• Docket: 12304
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 12304

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN

THE STATE O M N A A e x r e l . CHING WENKE LINTZ, F OTN

Petitioner,

DISTRICT COURT O THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT F OF THE STATE O MONTANPs, F

Respondent.

@r3-g Pnal Proceedings.

Counsel o f Record :

For Appellant :

David Astle a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana 59901. P a t r i c k S p r i n g e r a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana 59901.

F o r Respondent :

H. James Oleson, a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e l l , Montana 59901. Robert t. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montzna 5 9 6 0 l .

Submitted: J u n e 2 1 , 1972

Decided : $UN 2 9 4972 Filed : Per Curiam: This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding brought by r e l a t o r a s a p e t i t i o n f o r a post-conviction hearing, Upon h e a r i n g t h e p e t i t i o n ex p a r t e , t h i s Court g r a n t e d an o r d e r t o show cause d i r e c t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e e l e v e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , t h e Hon. Robert S. I c e l l e r , p r e s i d i n g . Return was made, i n c l u d i n g a t r a n s - c r i p t of h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . A motion t o quash was made and o r a l argument had. B r i e f l y , p e t i t i o n e r , 21 y e a r s of a g e , was a r r e s t e d f o r t h e c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous d r u g s , a f e l o n y . Upon a r r a i g n - ment he p l e a d n o t g u i l t y , s u b s e q u e n t l y changed t o a g u i l t y p l e a . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on " m i t i g a t i o n o r a g g r a v a t i o n of sentence'' on May 1 7 , 1972. Defendant was g r a n t e d a 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 i n an o r d e r s e t t i n g f o r t h what we w i l l term "usual c o n d i t i o n s ' ' . Defendant had o r a l l y agreed t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e c o u r t and law enforcement o f f i c i a l s . I n h i s a r r e s t and t h e subsequent i n v e s t i g a t i o n , defendant had v o l u n t a r i l y l e d o f f i c e r s t o o t h e r d r u g s , marihuana, c o c a i n e and P.C.P. IIe had s o l d twelve l i d s of marihuana. He claimed t h e cache of o t h e r drugs belonged t o one Bristow. A t t h e p r e s e n t e n c e h e a r i n g , under o a t h , defendant t o l d one s t o r y , t h e d e t a i l s of which a r e n o t of g r e a t importance h e r e , b u t which were b e l i e v e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . A t t h e subsequent t r i a l of t h e h e r e t o f o r e mentioned Bristow, defendant t o l d a different story which convinced t h e c o u r t t h a t he had p r e v i o u s l y perjured himself. He t h e n r e f u s e d t o answer f o r f e a r o f f u r t h e r i n c r i m i n a t i n g himself---something t h a t he did not r a i s e a t t h e presentence hearing. The t r i a l judge i n h i s r e t u r n c h a r a c t e r i z e s d e f e n d a n t ' s testimony a t t h e Bristow t r i a l a s a " f a r c e , a sham"; and, t h a t h i s l a c k of memory was a " p a l p a b l e l i e " and h e made a II mockery" of t h e c o u r t . A r e a d i n g o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t by t h i s Court r e v e a l s t h e

c h a r a c L e r i z a t i o n s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o be a p t . The defendant had c l e a r l y deceived and m i s r e p r e s e n t e d m a t t e r s t o o b t a i n a

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 p e t i t i o n f o r r e v o c a t i o n of c h a t 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 was made, a h e a r i n g was h e l d ,

and t h e s t a t u t o r y presumption of a d e f e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n of sen-

cence was c l e a r l y r e b u t t e d .

The t r i a l c o u r t sentenced defendant t o f i f t e e n y e a r s . W a r e informed t h a t an a p p e a l i s b e i n g taken s o t h a t e

e r r o r s , i f any, may be reviewed i n t h e normal a p p e a l p r o c e s s . A f t e r reviewing t h e r e c o r d , we do n o t f i n d any abuse of d i s c r e -

t i o n s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h i s Court t o t a k e o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n

a t t h i s time. Accordingly, t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e p r e v i o u s l y

g r a n t e d i s quashed. R e l a t o r i n h i s p e t i t i o n a l s o seeks r e l i e f by way of s t a y o f e x e c u t i o n of t h e s e n t e n c e , pending a p p e a l . W deny t h a t r e l i e f e

a t t h i s time w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e .