State v. M. Henry , 2017 MT 233N ( 2017 )

09/19/2017
DA 16-0462
Case Number: DA 16-0462
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2017 MT 233N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL HENRY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DC-2015-334
Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Paul M. Leisher, Paoli Law Firm, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Ryan W. Aikin, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Kirsten H. Pabst, Missoula County Attorney, Suzy Boylan, Deputy
County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 19, 2017
Decided: September 19, 2017
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 In June 2015, Henry was charged with felony aggravated assault and the following
misdemeanor charges: partner or family member assault (PFMA), criminal destruction or
tampering with a communication device, and obstructing a peace officer. On July 10,
2015, Henry entered an initial plea of not guilty. On October 16, 2015, the Fourth
Judicial District Court, Missoula County, conducted a change-of-plea hearing at which
Henry entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the aggravated assault and PFMA
charges. There was initial confusion at the hearing regarding whether Henry’s plea
agreement was made pursuant to § 46-12-211(1)(b) or (1)(c), MCA. The District Court
clarified that the agreement was made pursuant to (1)(c) and Henry would not have the
right to withdraw his plea in the event the District Court did not accept the State’s
recommendation or request. The court then gave Henry the opportunity to withdraw his
plea at the hearing but the record reflects further confusion ensued at this stage with the
court, the lawyers, and Henry talking over one another. Nonetheless, Henry subsequently
indicated his understanding and based upon his response, the court ordered the
pre-sentence investigation and scheduled the sentencing hearing. Per the agreement, the
2
State dismissed the remaining charges and recommended a five-year commitment to the
Department of Corrections and allowance for the defense to argue for a lesser sentence.
However, four months later and a few weeks prior to the scheduled April 2016
sentencing hearing, Henry moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The District Court denied
his motion. Subsequently, the court adopted the State’s recommended disposition.
Henry appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We
affirm.
¶3 The only issue before us is whether the District Court erred in denying Henry’s
motion. The record supports the court’s ruling. It is evident from the record that the
court adequately clarified the earlier confusion pertaining to Henry’s right to withdraw
his plea. Consequently, the District Court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and its
conclusion is not incorrect.
¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. In
the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the
clear application of applicable standards of review. The District Court’s interpretation
and application of the law were correct.
¶5 Affirmed.
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
3
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ JIM RICE
4