State v. Peterson , 211 Mont. 231 ( 1984 )

NO. 83-480
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1984
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vs-
DAN P. PETERSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Hill,
The IIonorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Bosch, Kohr, Dugdale, Warner, Martin & Kaze; John
Warner, Havre, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Ronald W. Smith, County Attorney, Havre, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 12, 1984
Decided: July 10, 1984
Filed:
$Uh. Id :9t14
-. ----
Clerk
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered. the Opinion of the
Court.
This c a s e a r o s e i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Twelfth J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t , H i l l County, where Dan P e t e r s o n e n t e r e d a p l e a of
guilty on September 25, 1981, to one count of mitigated
d e l i b e r a t e homicide and one c o u n t of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . He
now a p p e a l s t h e a r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f i l e d J u n e 23,
1983, d e n y i n g t h e motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a .
According t o t h e motion f o r l e a v e t o f i l e an i n f o r m a t i o n
filed January 12, 1981, in H i l l County, the following
occurred on January 9, 1981: Carla Peterson, who was
s e p a r a t e d from h e r husband, Dan, f i n i s h e d work and l e f t t o
meet Roger McIntosh a t t h e Shanty Bar i n Havre. A t the bar,
Dan Peterson spoke to Roger and C a r l a and indicated. t h a t
t h e i r s e e i n g e a c h o t h e r was g o i n g t o c a u s e problems. Dan
then l e f t t h e bar.
C a r l a and Roger l e f t t h e b a r a p p r o x i m a t e l y one-half hour
later. They walked t o R o g e r ' s v e h i c l e and C a r l a g o t i n t h e
drivers side. She t h e n h e a r d a s h o t and saw Roger f a l l t o
t h e sidewalk. He had been s h o t i n t h e head. She screamed
and r a n toward t h e back d o o r of t h e b a r . But a s s h e r a n , s h e
was s h o t i n t h e l e g and f e l l down. Dan P e t e r s o n approached
h e r w i t h a r i f l e i n h i s hands, a.nd asked h e r i f s h e was r e a d y
to come home. He then looked at her leg and at Roger
McIntosh and imrnecliately l e f t t h e s c e n e .
P e t e r s o n was apprehended a t h i s m o t h e r ' s home s h o r t l y
thereafter. His brother s a i d t h a t P e t e r s o n broke i n t o h i s
home, took a 30.06 rifle and then returned it. When
P e t e r s o n ' s b r o t h e r found t h e gun, i t showed s i g n s o f h a v i n g
been r e c e n t l y f i r e d .
Peterson gave notice of his intention to rely on the
defense of a mental disease or defect which precluded his
having the particular state of mind which is an element of
the crime charged. He was eventually exa.mined by three
d-octors and each gave a report that wa.s reviewed by defense
counsel.
Negotiations were conducted between Peterson and the
State, culminating in a written "Offer to Plead Guilty and
Pre-trial Agreement." The agreement stated that the county
attorney was to amend the information to charge Peterson with
one count of mitigated. deliberate homicide and one count of
aggravated assault rather than the original one count of
deliberate homicide and one count of attempted deliberate
homicide. It was upon this condition that Peterson was to
plead guilty to the amended charges. The agreement a.lso
contained the following statement:
"It is further understood by me that by entering a
plea of Guilty to the charges set forth in the
amended information I have waived my right to a
speedy trial by jury, and have admitted each of the
material- elements co~tained in the charges filed
against me. I also understand that the Court may
lawfully impose up to forty (40) years in the
Montana State Prison on the charge of mitigated
deliberate homicide and twenty (20) years in the
Montana State Prison on the charge of aggravated
assault."
The agreement was given to Peterson shortly before his
arraignment on September 25, 1981, and he signed it in the
hallway before entering the courtroom. It was also signed by
the county attorney and Peterson's two lawyers, Brian
Lilletvedt and Robert Morrison.
Prior to accepting the guilty plea from Peterson, the
District Court examined Peterson's two attorneys regarding
their impression of Peterson's understanding of the pretrial
agreement. They were questioned as to his competence and
volition in signing the agreement. The court then
extensively examined Peterson regarding his knowledge of the
agreement and his basis for signing the agreement and for
pleading guilty. Peterson was informed of his constitutional
rights and the fact that by pleading guilty he was waiving
those rights a.s they regard this case. Peterson answered
that he knew the maximum potential penalties for the crimes
to which he was pleading guilty.
After thorough questioning by the court, Peterson
pleaded guilty to the mitigated. deliberate homicide and
aggravated assault charges. On January 15, 1.982, judgment
was filed sentencing Peterson to 40 years imprisonment on the
mitigated deliberate homicide charge, to be served
consecutively with 10 years imprisonment on the aggravated
assault charge.
Acting pro se, Peterson filed a notice of appeal of the
judgment on March 3, 1982. Thereafter, the District Court
granted Peterson's counsel leave to withdraw and appointed
substitute counsel. A motion to withdraw his guilty plea was
filed on April 18, 1983 and the appeal filed by Peterson was
remanded by this Court for a hearing on the motion.
On June 10, 1983, the District Court held a hearing on
Peterson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. peterson's
sister-in-law, Peterson's mother, and Peterson testified on
his behalf. Peterson's previous counsel and the county
attorney testified for the State. An order denying
Peterson's motion was filed June 23, 1983. The District
Court found that:
". . . the defendant freely, voluntaril-y and on his
own made the decision to plead guilty to the
reduced charges and that the reduced charges were
offered in exchange for his plea. All of these
actions were done knowingly, freely, voluntarily
and without any threats, duress, pressures or
coercion of any kind from any source.. . ."
On appeal, Peterson raises only the issue of whether the
District Court was correct in denying his motion to withdraw
the guilty plea. Upon review of the record, we affirm the
District Court's action.
Peterson makes essentially five claims to support his
contention tha.t his guilty plea was made by mistake or
involuntarily. First, Peterson claims tha.t he had trouble
communicating with his attorneys. Second, he claims that an
article printed in the local newspaper which declared that he
had pleaded guilty (before he had done so) pressured. h.im to
plead guilty. Third, he claims that he was denied a copy of
the report by one of the examining doctors and. was thus
unable to make an informed choice. Fourth, Peterson claims
that the possibility that the county attorney involved the
present case was to testify regarding Peterson's state of
mind exhibited in regard to his divorce case pressured him to
plead guilty. Fifth, he claims that he signed the pretrial
agreement while in a state of shock and that he did not fully
understand the effect of pleading guilty to mitigated
deliberate homicide. Peterson contends that, taken as a
whole, these circumstances induced him to plead guilty.
The District Court ' s discretion deciding mot ion
withdraw a guilty plea is to be relied upon unless an abuse
of that discretion has been shown. State v. Lewis (1978),
177 Mont. 474, 582 P.2d 346; State v. Doty (1-977), 173 Mont.
566 P.2d 1388. In Lewis, this Court stated that:
"Where a District Court has done all that it can to
determine, from the defendant or otherwise, that
the proposed plea of guilty is voluntarily ma.de,
the defendant understands what he is doing and is
advised of the consequences of his plea, including
the nature and extent of his punishment, has been
adequately advised by counsel, and has been treated
fairly at all stages of the prosecution against
him, and that in fact the defendant states he is
guilty of the charges made, then this Court has a
duty to support the District Court when it allows a
plea of guilty to be entered in place of a plea of
not guilty." 177 Mont. at 484, 582 P.2d at 352.
Tha.t duty requires us here to uphold the District Court's
action. The court found, through questioning of Peterson and
his counsel, that he was competent, acting voluntarily and
that he understood the charges and possible punishment.
Peterson was not acting under the influence of drugs or
alcohol, admitted that his counsel were competent and kept
him well-advised, and admitted in open court the facts upon
which his guilt is based. We hold that because these
conditions were fulfilled, the guilty plea should be upheld.
Lewis, 177 Mont. at 485, 582 P.2d at 352.
Peterson's claims were not substantiated by the record
of the hearing at which the District Court accepted his plea
or by the record of the hearing on his motion to withdraw his
plea. There was sufficient communication with his attorneys,
including discussions regarding the doctors' reports and the
potential uses of them in Peterson's defense. As to the
newspaper report and the possibilj-ty of the county attorney
testifying, Peterson made no mention or gave no indication
that these influenced his guilty plea w h e ~ he was
interrogated by the District Court. Finally, there is no
evidence to support Peterson's claim that he was not aware of
the possible penalty for mitigated deliberate homicide. The
record shows that he was fully interrogated as to his
understanding of his plea and that he entered the plea
voluntarily and without mistake.
Affirmed.
J' ', r
pin- sX/,&.c-,
Justice-
We Concur:
4.'&!LG$&4
Chief Justice &
?