No. 13863 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978
THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- RICHARD SANDERS, Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Calton and Stephens, Billings, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Jack Yardley, County Attorney, Livingston, Montana
Submitted: February 27, 1978 Decided : MAR 17 1978 Filed: MFg '- . y-2 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
his i s a n a p p e a l 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 ,
P a r k County, denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n
relief.
T h i s i s t h e t h i r d o c c a s i o n t h a t t h i s c a s e h a s been
b e f o r e t h i s Court. I n March 1 9 7 0 , a p p e l l a n t was c h a r g e d
w i t h t h r e e c o u n t s of f e l o n y a s s a u l t . Count I a l l e g e d h e
a s s a u l t e d t h r e e i t i n e r a n t magazine sales g i r l s . Count I1
a l l e g e d d e f e n d a n t p o i n t e d a l o a d e d gun a t a t o u r i s t . Count
I11 a l l e g e d d e f e n d a n t a s s a u l t e d a f o r m e r employee. Count I
was d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k of e v i d e n c e . Defendant was c o n v i c t e d
on Counts I1 and 111, b u t t h e c o n v i c t i o n s w e r e r e v e r s e d on
a p p e a l a s e x t r a n e o u s e v i d e n c e had been i m p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d .
S t a t e v. Sanders, ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 113, 489 P.2d 371.
Defendant was r e t r i e d and c o n v i c t e d of second d e g r e e
a s s a u l t i n 1972. T h a t c o n v i c t i o n w a s a p p e a l e d on l a c k o f
speedy t r i a l and w a s a f f i r m e d . S t a t e v. Sanders, (1973),
163 Mont. 209, 516 P.2d 372. 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 w a s revoked and h e w a s s e n t e n c e d t o f o u r y e a r s
i n t h e s t a t e prison. S a n d e r s s e r v e d h i s t e r m i n p r i s o n and
h e i s no l o n g e r i n c a r c e r a t e d .
I n December 1973, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n U n i t e d
S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court f o r post-conviction relief. The
p e t i t i o n was r e f e r r e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , S i x t h J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of
Park. I n A p r i l 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r denying a l l p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e m e d i e s . Appellant appeals
from t h a t o r d e r .
I n March 1970, a p p e l l a n t w a s c h a r g e d w i t h t h r e e c o u n t s
of f e l o n i o u s a s s a u l t . After h i s a r r e s t , appellant contacted
Dan Y a r d l e y , a n a t t o r n e y who had p r e v i o u s l y handled c i v i l m a t t e r s f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t , r e g a r d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on t h e
criminal charges. A t t h e t i m e of t h i s c o n s u l t a t i o n , J a c k
Yardley, t h e b r o t h e r and p a r t n e r of Dan Y a r d l e y , was t h e
c i t y a t t o r n e y of L i v i n g s t o n , Montana. According t o t h e
a f f i d a v i t by J a c k Y a r d l e y , d a t e d October 27, 1975, a s soon
as J a c k became aware t h a t a p p e l l a n t was making i n q u i r y of
h i s p a r t n e r , Dan Y a r d l e y , J a c k e n t e r e d t h e o f f i c e and
a d v i s e d Dan Yardley and a p p e l l a n t and h i s w i f e t h a t a
p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t c o u l d a r i s e , b e c a u s e h e was t h e c i t y
a t t o r n e y , and members o f t h e L i v i n g s t o n p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t
were i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a s e and t h u s p e r s p e c t i v e w i t n e s s e s
a g a i n s t Sanders. Because of t h i s p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t , Dan
Yardley t h e n d e c l i n e d t o a c c e p t t h e c a s e and no f e e was
charged.
J a c k Yardley s t a t e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t :
" T h a t a t no t i m e d i d a f f i a n t l e a r n o r know of any of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r d e f e n s e s of RICHARD SANDERS a s t o t h e c h a r g e s of second d e g r e e a s s a u l t i n March 1970."
A p p e l l a n t was c o n v i c t e d of t h e c h a r g e s i n 1970, a p p e a l e d ,
and t h e c o n v i c t i o n was r e v e r s e d by t h e Montana Supreme
Court. S t a t e v. Sanders, ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 1 1 3 , 489 P.2d
371. I n J a n u a r y 1971, f o l l o w i n g S a n d e r s ' c o n v i c t i o n a t t h e
f i r s t t r i a l , J a c k Yardley became t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f o r
Park County, Montana. Subsequent t o t h e r e v e r s a l of h i s
c o n v i c t i o n , a p p e l l a n t was r e t r i e d i n 1972 and c o n v i c t e d of
o n e c o u n t of f e l o n i o u s a s s a u l t . The p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y on
t h e r e t r i a l was J a c k Y a r d l e y .
A p p e l l a n t based h i s 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 relief
upon t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r a t a p p e l l a n t ' s 1972 t r i a l
was t h e p a r t n e r of t h e a t t o r n e y whom h e i n i t i a l l y c o n s u l t e d
p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t t r i a l regarding representation.
I n a n a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of t h e 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 f i l e d by a p p e l l a n t and h i s w i f e i n Decem-
b e r 1973, a p p e l l a n t r e c i t e s t h e above f a c t s and s t a t e s t h a t
d u r i n g t h e c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h Dan Yardley they discussed i n
c o m p l e t e d e t a i l t h e e v e n t s of t h e day of t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t
and p o s s i b l e t h e o r i e s of d e f e n s e , and t h a t no d o u b t J a c k
Yardley had o c c a s i o n t o h e a r t h e e n t i r e c o n v e r s a t i o n .
iio o b j e c t i o n s were made a t t r i a l t o t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
o f J a c k Yardley t o p r o s e c u t e t h e c a s e on b e h a l f of t h e
state. T h i s i s s u e was f i r s t r a i s e d i n a p p e l l a n t ' s 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 f i l e d a f t e r h i s c o n v i c t i o n was
a f f i r m e d o n a p p e a l i n 1973, 19 months a f t e r r e t r i a l .
The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether o r n o t S a n d e r s i s
e n t i t l e d t o p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f based upon t h e a l l e g e d
p r i o r involvement of t h e p r o s e c u t o r w i t h p r e l i m i n a r y d e f e n s e
matters? W e w i l l assume, f o r t h e p u r p o s e of d i s c u s s i o n of
t h i s issue, that appellant's allegations a r e true.
To r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o l o o k a t t h e
s e c o n d a r y issue--whether o r n o t a p p e l l a n t waived h i s p r i v i -
l e g e t o a s s e r t t h e a l l e g e d p r o s e c u t o r i a l c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t ?
A p p e l l a n t f i r s t r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e c o u n t y
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
No. 13863 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978
THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- RICHARD SANDERS, Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Calton and Stephens, Billings, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Jack Yardley, County Attorney, Livingston, Montana
Submitted: February 27, 1978 Decided : MAR 17 1978 Filed: MFg '- . y-2 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
his i s a n a p p e a l 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 ,
P a r k County, denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n
relief.
T h i s i s t h e t h i r d o c c a s i o n t h a t t h i s c a s e h a s been
b e f o r e t h i s Court. I n March 1 9 7 0 , a p p e l l a n t was c h a r g e d
w i t h t h r e e c o u n t s of f e l o n y a s s a u l t . Count I a l l e g e d h e
a s s a u l t e d t h r e e i t i n e r a n t magazine sales g i r l s . Count I1
a l l e g e d d e f e n d a n t p o i n t e d a l o a d e d gun a t a t o u r i s t . Count
I11 a l l e g e d d e f e n d a n t a s s a u l t e d a f o r m e r employee. Count I
was d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k of e v i d e n c e . Defendant was c o n v i c t e d
on Counts I1 and 111, b u t t h e c o n v i c t i o n s w e r e r e v e r s e d on
a p p e a l a s e x t r a n e o u s e v i d e n c e had been i m p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d .
S t a t e v. Sanders, ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 113, 489 P.2d 371.
Defendant was r e t r i e d and c o n v i c t e d of second d e g r e e
a s s a u l t i n 1972. T h a t c o n v i c t i o n w a s a p p e a l e d on l a c k o f
speedy t r i a l and w a s a f f i r m e d . S t a t e v. Sanders, (1973),
163 Mont. 209, 516 P.2d 372. 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 w a s revoked and h e w a s s e n t e n c e d t o f o u r y e a r s
i n t h e s t a t e prison. S a n d e r s s e r v e d h i s t e r m i n p r i s o n and
h e i s no l o n g e r i n c a r c e r a t e d .
I n December 1973, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n U n i t e d
S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court f o r post-conviction relief. The
p e t i t i o n was r e f e r r e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , S i x t h J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of
Park. I n A p r i l 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r denying a l l p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e m e d i e s . Appellant appeals
from t h a t o r d e r .
I n March 1970, a p p e l l a n t w a s c h a r g e d w i t h t h r e e c o u n t s
of f e l o n i o u s a s s a u l t . After h i s a r r e s t , appellant contacted
Dan Y a r d l e y , a n a t t o r n e y who had p r e v i o u s l y handled c i v i l m a t t e r s f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t , r e g a r d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on t h e
criminal charges. A t t h e t i m e of t h i s c o n s u l t a t i o n , J a c k
Yardley, t h e b r o t h e r and p a r t n e r of Dan Y a r d l e y , was t h e
c i t y a t t o r n e y of L i v i n g s t o n , Montana. According t o t h e
a f f i d a v i t by J a c k Y a r d l e y , d a t e d October 27, 1975, a s soon
as J a c k became aware t h a t a p p e l l a n t was making i n q u i r y of
h i s p a r t n e r , Dan Y a r d l e y , J a c k e n t e r e d t h e o f f i c e and
a d v i s e d Dan Yardley and a p p e l l a n t and h i s w i f e t h a t a
p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t c o u l d a r i s e , b e c a u s e h e was t h e c i t y
a t t o r n e y , and members o f t h e L i v i n g s t o n p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t
were i n v o l v e d i n t h e c a s e and t h u s p e r s p e c t i v e w i t n e s s e s
a g a i n s t Sanders. Because of t h i s p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t , Dan
Yardley t h e n d e c l i n e d t o a c c e p t t h e c a s e and no f e e was
charged.
J a c k Yardley s t a t e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t :
" T h a t a t no t i m e d i d a f f i a n t l e a r n o r know of any of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r d e f e n s e s of RICHARD SANDERS a s t o t h e c h a r g e s of second d e g r e e a s s a u l t i n March 1970."
A p p e l l a n t was c o n v i c t e d of t h e c h a r g e s i n 1970, a p p e a l e d ,
and t h e c o n v i c t i o n was r e v e r s e d by t h e Montana Supreme
Court. S t a t e v. Sanders, ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 1 1 3 , 489 P.2d
371. I n J a n u a r y 1971, f o l l o w i n g S a n d e r s ' c o n v i c t i o n a t t h e
f i r s t t r i a l , J a c k Yardley became t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f o r
Park County, Montana. Subsequent t o t h e r e v e r s a l of h i s
c o n v i c t i o n , a p p e l l a n t was r e t r i e d i n 1972 and c o n v i c t e d of
o n e c o u n t of f e l o n i o u s a s s a u l t . The p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o r n e y on
t h e r e t r i a l was J a c k Y a r d l e y .
A p p e l l a n t based h i s 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 relief
upon t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r a t a p p e l l a n t ' s 1972 t r i a l
was t h e p a r t n e r of t h e a t t o r n e y whom h e i n i t i a l l y c o n s u l t e d
p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t t r i a l regarding representation.
I n a n a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of t h e 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 f i l e d by a p p e l l a n t and h i s w i f e i n Decem-
b e r 1973, a p p e l l a n t r e c i t e s t h e above f a c t s and s t a t e s t h a t
d u r i n g t h e c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h Dan Yardley they discussed i n
c o m p l e t e d e t a i l t h e e v e n t s of t h e day of t h e a l l e g e d a s s a u l t
and p o s s i b l e t h e o r i e s of d e f e n s e , and t h a t no d o u b t J a c k
Yardley had o c c a s i o n t o h e a r t h e e n t i r e c o n v e r s a t i o n .
iio o b j e c t i o n s were made a t t r i a l t o t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
o f J a c k Yardley t o p r o s e c u t e t h e c a s e on b e h a l f of t h e
state. T h i s i s s u e was f i r s t r a i s e d i n a p p e l l a n t ' s 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 f i l e d a f t e r h i s c o n v i c t i o n was
a f f i r m e d o n a p p e a l i n 1973, 19 months a f t e r r e t r i a l .
The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether o r n o t S a n d e r s i s
e n t i t l e d t o p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f based upon t h e a l l e g e d
p r i o r involvement of t h e p r o s e c u t o r w i t h p r e l i m i n a r y d e f e n s e
matters? W e w i l l assume, f o r t h e p u r p o s e of d i s c u s s i o n of
t h i s issue, that appellant's allegations a r e true.
To r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o l o o k a t t h e
s e c o n d a r y issue--whether o r n o t a p p e l l a n t waived h i s p r i v i -
l e g e t o a s s e r t t h e a l l e g e d p r o s e c u t o r i a l c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t ?
A p p e l l a n t f i r s t r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e c o u n t y
a t t o r n e y ' s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n a p e t i t i o n f o r post-conviction
r e l i e f f i l e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t 19 months
a f t e r t h a t c o n v i c t i o n had been a f f i r m e d on a p p e a l . No
o b j e c t i o n was made, a l t h o u g h a p p e l l a n t had t o be aware of
t h e a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l .
There a r e no Montana c a s e s d i r e c t l y on t h i s i s s u e , b u t
t h i s C o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t may waive a l e g a l
right. I n S t a t e v. Gallagher, ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont. 1 5 5 , 509
P.2d 852, t h e d e f e n d a n t was g i v e n a c h o i c e between e x p e r i -
enced c o u r t a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l and c o u n s e l who had p r e v i o u s l y
prosecuted defendant i n another t r i a l . Defendant c h o s e a s h i s d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h e a t t o r n e y who had p r e v i o u s l y p r o s e c u t e d
him. T h i s C o u r t h e l d d e f e n d a n t , by h i s c o n d u c t , had waived
any r i g h t t o demand a new t r i a l based on a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t of
the attorney.
An a s s e r t i o n of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of a p r o s e c u t i n g
a t t o r n e y b e c a u s e of h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e a c c u s e d i s a
p r i v i l e g e of t h e l a t t e r which may b e waived i n v a r i o u s ways,
p r i n c i p a l l y by f a i l u r e t o r a i s e t h e p o i n t a t t h e e a r l i e s t
p o s s i b l e t i m e . D i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of P r o s e c u t i n g A t t o r n e y on
Account of R e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Accused, Anno. 31 ALR3d 953,
989. Gajewski v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , (8th C i r . 1 9 6 3 ) , 321 F.2d
261, c e r t . d e n . 375 U.S. 968, 1 L ed 2d 416, 8 4 S . C t . 1 486.
I n the instant case appellant failed t o object t o
Yardley p r o s e c u t i n g him a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l , based on a l l e g e d
c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . I n s t e a d , h e s t o o d by and w a i t e d f o r
t h e outcome. When t h e outcome was u n f a v o r a b l e t o him, he
r a i s e d t h e c o n f l i c t i s s u e a s a p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n remedy,
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 19 months a f t e r h i s c o n v i c t i o n was a f f i r m e d .
A p p e l l a n t c a n n o t s i t by and s p e c u l a t e on t h e outcome of
h i s c o n v i c t i o n and t h e n r a i s e t h i s i s s u e a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t
h a s been e n t e r e d . A p p e l l a n t waived h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o
o b j e c t t o Yardley p r o s e c u t i n g him by f a i l i n g t o o b j e c t t o
the prosecutor's qualifications a t t r i a l .
Therefore, a l l post-conviction r e l i e f i s denied. /" /' ,& J & Justice
W e Concur:
3h&$ %& Chief J u s t i c e