State v. Babb

2003 MT 256N
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 23, 2003
Docket02-755
StatusPublished

This text of 2003 MT 256N (State v. Babb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Babb, 2003 MT 256N (Mo. 2003).

Opinion

No. 02-755

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2003 MT 256N

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CODY BABB,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, In and For the County of Dawson, Cause No. DC 2001-015. Honorable Richard A. Simonton, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

John Houtz, Attorney at Law, Forsyth, Montana

For Respondent:

Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Tammy K. Plubell, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Scott W. Herring, County Attorney; Mark Murphy, Special Deputy County Attorney, Glendive, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: April 10, 2003

Decided: September 23, 2003

Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(i), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

Operating Rules (Memorandum Opinions), we determine that the legal issues raised in this

appeal are clearly controlled by settled Montana law; that the issues are factual and there

clearly is sufficient evidence to support the findings of fact below; and that the court's

conclusions of law are correct.

¶2 Cody Babb (Babb) appeals from the District Court’s failure to dismiss the charge of

Aggravated Kidnapping by Accountability and the sentence imposed that exceeded the terms

of the plea agreement. We affirm.

¶3 Babb pleaded guilty on December 4, 2001, to Aggravated Kidnapping by Account-

ability and Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs in exchange for the dismissal of a

charge of Deliberate Homicide by Accountability. Babb filed a Notice of Appeal from the

District Court’s sentencing order entered “August 28, 2002, and September 3, 2002.”

¶4 We will not address issues raised on appeal that were not raised in the district court.

State v. Whitehorn, 2002 MT 54, ¶ 24, 309 Mont. 63, ¶ 24, 50 P.3d 121, ¶ 24 (citations

omitted); § 46-20-104(2), MCA; § 46-20-701, MCA. The record is void of any motion by

Babb to dismiss the Aggravated Kidnapping by Accountability charges. Therefore, we will

not address that issue.

¶5 Because Babb pleaded guilty, he can only attack the voluntariness and intelligent

character of his guilty plea; all nonjurisdictional claims are waived. State v. Gordon, 1999

MT 169, ¶ 23, 295 Mont. 183, ¶ 23, 983 P.2d 377, ¶ 23 (citing State v. Wheeler (1997), 285

2 Mont. 400, 402, 948 P.2d 698, 699). Babb has not raised a jurisdictional claim (such as

whether the district court could determine that the government lacked the power to bring the

indictment from the face of the indictment or from the record at the time the guilty plea was

accepted). Hagan v. State (1994), 265 Mont. 31, 36, 873 P.2d 1385, 1388; U.S. v. Cortez

(9th Cir. 1992), 973 F.2d 764, 767. Hence, the only issue we consider is the sentence

imposed.

¶6 We have stated in the past that when a district court accepts a guilty plea pursuant

to an agreement between the defendant and the State, the court is not bound by the plea

agreement. State v. Miller (1991), 248 Mont. 194, 196, 810 P.2d 308, 309 (affirmed on

appeal). The plea agreement in the instant case plainly states it is not binding upon the court.

The State made the agreed upon sentence recommendation. The court acted within its

powers and imposed a sentence not in accordance with the sentence recommendation but

within the statutory boundaries.

¶7 We review a district court’s criminal sentence for legality only, addressing whether

the sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by statute. State v. Muhammad,

2002 MT 47, ¶ 18, 309 Mont. 1, ¶ 18, 43 P.3d 318, ¶ 18 (citing State v. Pritchett, 2000 MT

261, ¶ 6, 302 Mont. 1, ¶ 6, 11 P.3d 539, ¶ 6). The sentence imposed by the District Court

is clearly within these parameters. We affirm.

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

3 We concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JIM RICE /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ JIM REGNIER

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Carlos Cortez
973 F.2d 764 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
State v. Miller
810 P.2d 308 (Montana Supreme Court, 1991)
Hagan v. State
873 P.2d 1385 (Montana Supreme Court, 1994)
State v. Wheeler
948 P.2d 698 (Montana Supreme Court, 1997)
State v. Gordon
1999 MT 169 (Montana Supreme Court, 1999)
State v. Pritchett
2000 MT 261 (Montana Supreme Court, 2000)
State v. Whitehorn
2002 MT 54 (Montana Supreme Court, 2002)
State v. Muhammad
2002 MT 47 (Montana Supreme Court, 2002)
United States v. Ensign
2 Mont. 396 (Montana Supreme Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2003 MT 256N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-babb-mont-2003.