State v. Hintz
This text of State v. Hintz (State v. Hintz) 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.
Opinion
NO. 83-125
I N T E SUPREPIE C U T O T E STATE O F M N A A H O R F H OTN
STATE O M N A A F O T N ,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
VS . H R E HINTZ and K N E H SCHAFER, AVY E NT
Defendants and. A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e Countv o f S i l v e r Bow Honorable Mark S u l l i v a n , Judqe p r e s i d i n a .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t s :
Harvey H i n t z , Pro S e , Deer Lodoe, Montana Kenneth S c h a f e r , P r o S e , Deer Lodse, Montana
For Respondent :
EIon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Robert McCarthy, County A t t o r n e y , B u t t e , Montana
Submitted on b r i e f s - June 1 0 , i98j
Decided- August 4 , 1953
Filed: Abi; 4 1983 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the Court.
T h i s i s an a p p e a l p r o se from a n o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g a p p e l l a n t s 1 p e t i t i o n for post-conviction r e l i e f entered i n the District Court
o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of S i l v e r Bow. On November 28, 1974, Raymond J o s e p h M e r r i c k was shot and k i l l e d d u r i n g a r o b b e r y of t h e Community Gas S t a t i o n , l o c a t e d on F r o n t and Main S t r e e t in Butte, Montana. The a p p e l l a n t s were
a r r e s t e d on t h e same d a y and e a c h c h a r g e d w i t h one c o u n t of d e l i -
b e r a t e h o m i c i d e and o n e c o u n t of r o b b e r y t o which t h e y p l e d " n o t guilty." Bond was s e t i n t h e amount of $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 f o r e a c h d e f e n - dant. D e f e n d a n t s c o u l d n o t p o s t bond and b o t h were h e l d i n t h e S i l v e r Bow County j a i l for a p e r i o d of a p p r o x i m a t e l y one y e a r .
D u r i n g t h a t y e a r p s y c h i a t r i c and p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n s were
made of t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l .
Arrested with the d e f e n d a n t s was one Mary J e a n Munson who
p l e d n o t g u i l t y and was l a t e r t r e a t e d a s a s e p a r a t e d e f e n d a n t and p l e a bargained with the S t a t e . On December 1 3 , t h e day s e t f o r a plea, Kenny S c h a f e r and
Mary J e a n Munson a p p e a r e d w i t h c o u n s e l M. P. S u l l i v a n , and H i n t z
appeared without counsel. On December 1 7 , H i n t z a p p e a r e d , r e p r e - s e n t e d by c o u n s e l S u l l i v a n , and made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p s y c h i a t r i c
evaluation. In l a t e January, a c h a n g e of c o u n s e l o c c u r r e d and H i n t z o b t a i n e d , by a p p o i n t m e n t , M i c h a e l McKeon of Anaconda t o a c t as counsel. Schafer continued to be represented by M. P. S u l l i v a n and J . J . P a r k e r . On J a n u a r y 2 8 , p l e a s of not g u i l t y were e n t e r e d to the information. On March 2 9 , M. P. Sullivan w i t h d r e w a s c o u n s e l f o r S c h a f e r and R . M. McCarthy was a p p o i n t e d a s S c h a f e r l s counsel. On t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , J a m e s E. P u r c e l l was appointed co-counsel f o r S c h a f e r and t h e t r i a l d a t e was s e t f o r April 15, 1975. During the next several months a number of
e x t e n s i o n s w e r e g r a n t e d and c o n t i n u a n c e s w e r e a l l o w e d f o r p u r p o s e
of mental examinations. On J u n e 4 , 1975, t h e Honorable Arnold
O l s e n , having been d i s q u a l i f i e d , c a l l e d i n t h e Honorable James D . Freebourn t o handle a l l f u r t h e r m a t t e r s . On S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 7 5 ,
t r i a l was s e t f o r Tuesday, November 4 , 1975, and t h e r e a f t e r a
number of d e f e n s e m o t i o n s were f i l e d . On November 1 2 , 1 9 7 5 , t h e two d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d p l e a s of guilty to t h e c h a r g e of deli-
b e r a t e homicide. The H o n o r a b l e J a m e s F r e e b o u r n i m m e d i a t e l y sen- t e n c e d e a c h d e f e n d a n t t o 1 0 0 y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . A t t h e t i m e of s e n t e n c i n g no p r e - s e n t e n c e investigation reports w e r e o r d e r e d n o r made.
Seven years later, on September 20, 1982, the defendants filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in the D i s t r i c t C o u r t of S i l v e r Bow County, a l l e g i n g t h a t " i n l i g h t of
t h e f a c t t h a t no p r e - s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t was made and no reasons were articulated for the lengthy sentences, it is p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g judge d i d n o t h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r -
m a t i o n upon which t o base a sentence. . . ." After the State f i l e d i t s r e s p o n s e , t h e H o n o r a b l e M. P. S u l l i v a n , D i s t r i c t J u d g e ,
denied the defendants request for post-conviction relief.
Thereafter they f i l e d a p e t i t i o n for rehearing, which was a l s o denied. This pro s e appeal follows. The a p p e l l a n t s a l l e g e t h a t s e r i o u s e r r o r was committed i n t h e
District Court's failing to properly i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f a c t s and circumstances of the case prior to imposing a sentence. The p e t i t i o n e r s a l l e g e t h a t t h e c o u r t r e c o r d s c o n t a i n no s t a t e m e n t s
f r o m e i t h e r of them i n which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o u l d have known that the shooting was an accident. They argue that if the D i s t r i c t C o u r t had t a k e n t h e time t o r e a d t h e f i l e s , t h e y would h a v e l e a r n e d t h a t one w i t n e s s t o t h e i n c i d e n t who had b e e n o r i g i - n a l l y c h a r g e d a s a d e f e n d a n t , Mary Munson, had s i g n e d a s t a t e m e n t i n which s h e t o l d t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e t h a t t h e s h o o t i n g was a c c i d e n t a l . They a r g u e t h a t had t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n q u i r e d
f r o m them when a c c e p t i n g t h e change of p l e a s a s t o w h a t a c t u a l l y
o c c u r r e d a t t h e time of the robbery, t h e t r u t h would have b e e n
known a n d , i n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t c o u l d have o b t a i n e d t h a t i n f o r -
mation in a pre-sentence report had it been furnished to the court. They a l l e g e t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of the robbery they
s h o t t h e a t t e n d a n t Ray M e r r i c k a c c i d e n t a l l y , when t h e d e c e a s e d , Merrick, w h i l e s t a n d i n g on a n e l e v a t e d p l a t f o r m b e s i d e t h e c a s h
r e g i s t e r , s l i p p e d and f e l l a g a i n s t p e t i t i o n e r S c h a f e r ' s arm t h a t
was h o l d i n g t h e gun. They a r g u e t h a t t h i s c a u s e d t h e weapon t o accidentally discharge, striking the deceased under his outstretched arm under the armpit causing immediate death.
P e t i t i o n e r s argue t h e District Court did not follow the appli-
cable statutes at the time of their sentencing. Sections 95-2201, 2 2 0 2 , 2203, RCM, 1 9 4 7 .
The c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t committed
error by not calling in another judge to hear the case after having been i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a s e a s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . The s t a t u -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Hintz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hintz-mont-1983.