State v. Steffans

CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 24, 1981
Docket81-247
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Steffans (State v. Steffans) 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. Steffans, (Mo. 1981).

Opinion

No. 81-247

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

STATE O MONTANA, F

P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,

VS.

LARRY STEFFANS,

D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourteenth 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 County o f M u s s e l s h e l l Honorable % a + ~ 4 - e n , dge p r e s i d i n g . Ju &,&!A- O L/d/yL?idr.. . K C o u n s e l o f Record:

For Appellant:

K a t h r y n R. B a y l i s , Roundup, Montana

F o r Respondent:

Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana J o h n P r a t t , County A t t o r n e y , Roundup, Montana

S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : September 1 7 , 1981

Decided: 24

- Clerk Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court.

D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from a j u d g m e n t r e v o k i n g h i s p r o b a t i o n a n d d e f e r r a l o f s e n t e n c e and s e n t e n c i n g him t o two y e a r s i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n f o r h i s o r i g i n a l crime.

On J u n e 1 3 , 1 9 7 9 , d e f e n d a n t L a r r y S t e f f a n s p l e d g u i l t y to t h e crime o f f o r g e r y . On t h e same d a y a n o r d e r was e n t e r e d d e f e r r i n g i m p o s i t i o n o f s e n t e n c e and p l a c i n g d e f e n d a n t o n p r o b a - t i o n u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e S t a t e Board of P a r o l e and

Pardons. On November 1 3 , 1 9 7 9 , h i s p r o b a t i o n and p a r o l e o f f i c e r f i l e d a r e p o r t o f v i o l a t i o n w i t h t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t which s t a t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t had v i o l a t e d t h e terms o f h i s p r o b a t i o n and

s t a t e and f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s by h a v i n g i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n s e v e r a l r i f l e s a f t e r having been c o n v i c t e d of a f e l o n y . On J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 , a w r i t t e n e n u m e r a t i o n o f t h e con- d i t i o n s o f p r o b a t i o n and p a r o l e were f u r n i s h e d d e f e n d a n t who

s i g n e d a w r i t t e n acknowledgement of r e c e i p t . Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o b a t i o n and p a r o l e p r o v i d e d t h a t he was n o t t o d r i n k any i n t o x i c a n t s nor to f r e q u e n t any p l a c e where i n t o x i -

c a n t s are t h e c h i e f i t e m o f s a l e ; t h a t he would c o m p l y w i t h a l l s t a t e and f e d e r a l l a w s and c o n d u c t h i m s e l f as a good c i t i z e n ; and

t h a t he would a t t e n d f a m i l y and m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l i n g a t t h e m e n t a l

h e a l t h c e n t e r i n Roundup, Montana. F o l l o w i n g a n a l l e g e d a t t e m p t by t h e d e f e n d a n t t o b u r n u p

h i s mother-in-law's a u t o m o b i l e and a n a l l e g e d a s s a u l t upon h e r ,

t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y o f M u s s e l s h e l l C o u n t y f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t and p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t ( 1) s p e c i f y i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r s C of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d u c t i n r e g a r d t o t h e a s s a u l t and a t t e m p t e d

burning of the automobile, ( 2 ) r e c i t i n g t h a t t h i s was a v i o l a t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o b a t i o n , and ( 3 ) r e q u e s t i n g a h e a r i n g t o show c a u s e why d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be

r e v o k e d and d e f e n d a n t be s e n t e n c e d to a term i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n . On t h e same d a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r to show c a u s e and d i r e c t e d t h a t a copy o f i t s o r d e r and t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s a f f i d a v i t be s e r v e d on d e f e n d a n t . The f o l l o w i n g d a y a c o u r t a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y was named f o r d e f e n d a n t .

On J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r f i l e d a

v i o l a t i o n r e p o r t w i t h t h e c o u r t and f u r n i s h e d two c o p i e s to t h e county attorney. N e i t h e r d e f e n d a n t n o r h i s c o u n s e l was s e r v e d w i t h a copy of t h i s r e p o r t . This r e p o r t covered t h e a l l e g e d a t t e m p t to b u r n h i s m o t h e r - i n - l a w ' s a u t o m o b i l e , d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d a s s a u l t on h i s m o t h e r - i n - l a w , and d e f e n d a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o k e e p m o s t o f h i s a p p o i n t m e n t s f o r f a m i l y and m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l i n g

a t t h e M e n t a l H e a l t h C e n t e r s i n Roundup and B i l l i n g s . The r e p o r t

c o n t a i n e d a summary o f p r o b a t i o n a d j u s t m e n t , s t a t i n g : " I t would a p p e a r t h a t t h e S u b j e c t does not intend t o obey t h e Court Order

o r Rules of Probation." A r e c o m m e n d a t i o n was i n c l u d e d t h a t

d e f e n d a n t be r e t u r n e d t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t f o r r e v o c a t i o n of t h e 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 F e b r u a r y 3 , 1 9 8 1 , a r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g was h e l d b e f o r e t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t of M u s s e l s h e l l County s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y . C The c o u r t t h e r e a f t e r e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w t h a t d e f e n d a n t v i o l a t e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s of h i s p r o b a t i o n by a s s a u l t i n g h i s mother-in-law and by f r e q u e n t i n g c e r t a i n b a r s i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, where i n t o x i c a n t s a r e t h e c h i e f i t e m of sale.

T h e r e a f t e r 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 o f s e n t e n c e on t h e f o r g e r y c o n v i c t i o n was r e v o k e d , d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d to two y e a r s imprisonment i n t h e S t a t e p r i s o n w i t h c r e d i t f o r t i m e

s e r v e d i n j a i l p r i o r t o s e n t e n c i n g , and he was d e s i g n a t e d a non- dangerous of fender.

Defendant a p p e a l s c o n t e n d i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by a d m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e of a l l e g e d p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n s o f which d e f e n s e c o u n s e l was n o t n o t i f i e d p r i o r to t h e revocation hearing. D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t f a i l u r e to n o t i f y

d e f e n d a n t or h i s c o u n s e l o f a l l e g e d p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d

i n t h e v i o l a t i o n r e p o r t of t h e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r which were n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s a f f i d a v i t and p e t i t i o n , v i z .

t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f f i r e a r m s , t h e f a i l u r e t o k e e p f a m i l y and

m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l i n g a p p o i n t m e n t s and t h e f r e q u e n t i n g o f b a r s ,

d e p r i v e d d e f e n d a n t o f t h e r i g h t to t h e i n f o r m e d a s s i s t a n c e o f counsel. W e h o l d t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n i n e v i d e n c e of p r o b a t i o n v i o l a -

t i o n s n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s a f f i d a v i t and p e t i -

t i o n t o r e v o k e p r o b a t i o n was e r r o r , b u t t h a t s u c h e r r o r d i d n o t

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

Related

United States v. Gale
109 U.S. 65 (Supreme Court, 1883)
Lloyd v. Brown
5 P.2d 83 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1930)
Territory of Montana v. Stocker
9 Mont. 6 (Montana Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Steffans, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-steffans-mont-1981.