State v. Bailey , 2014 MT 331N ( 2014 )

December 16 2014
DA 14-0287
Case Number: DA 14-0287
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2014 MT 331N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
ERIC LAT BAILEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and For the County of Butte/Silver Bow, Cause No. DC-09-117
Honorable Kurt Krueger, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Eric Lat Bailey, self-represented, Deer Lodge, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General; Brenda K. Elias, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Eileen Joyce, Butte-Silver Bow County Attorney, Butte, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 3, 2014
Decided: December 16, 2014
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), 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 Eric Lat Bailey appeals the Second Judicial District Court’s denial of his Motion
to Modify Court Orders with respect to his visiting privileges with his minor children at
Montana State Prison (MSP). Bailey was sentenced in July 2010 on his plea of guilty to
the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent. All but thirty days of his eight-year
sentence were suspended. The sentencing court imposed numerous conditions on the
suspended term, including standard sex offender conditions prohibiting unsupervised
contact with children. Bailey’s suspended sentence was revoked in 2012 and he was
sentenced to a term of eight years in prison, with credit for time served. The court’s
March 30, 2012 Judgment included the following language:
IT IS ALSO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS COURT that should
the Department grant the Defendant parole or early release that they
consider the previous conditions of supervision set forth by this Court in its
original Judgment of July 6, 2010.
¶3 Bailey filed a motion with the sentencing court on February 10, 2014, requesting
the court to modify its judgment “so he can visit his biological children in the well
supervised visiting room, by trained staff here at the Montana State Prison.” The Court
2
denied the motion on April 4, 2014, stating its position “that the original judgment stands
as written, and it is up to the Department of Corrections to implement this Court’s orders
as it interprets the terms and conditions stated therein.” Bailey appeals.
¶4 The State agrees with Bailey that the condition included in his judgment that
restricts Bailey’s unsupervised contact or socialization with minors does not apply while
he is incarcerated but “relates solely to his term of probation[.]” The court’s denial of
Bailey’s motion, the State suggests, “underscores the argument that the probationary
condition should not affect the conditions of his confinement at MSP.” It argues
nonetheless that the sentencing court lacks authority to direct MSP’s management
decisions and especially cannot do so in conjunction with Bailey’s request to modify his
sentencing order, which the court has no authority at this point to modify or change.
¶5 “[G]iven a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally
deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him and subject him to the
rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise
violate the Constitution.” Quigg v. Slaughter, 2007 MT 76, ¶ 31, 336 Mont. 474, 154
P.3d 1217 (quoting Wright v. Mahoney, 2003 MT 141, ¶ 8, 316 Mont. 173, 71 P.3d
1195). Our cases long have recognized that “prison officials are accorded ‘wide ranging
deference’ in adopting and executing policies to preserve internal order and discipline
among the inmates, including ‘prophylactic and preventative measures intended to reduce
the incidence’ of breaches of prison order.” Jellison v. Mahoney, 1999 MT 217, ¶ 12,
295 Mont. 540, 986 P.2d 1089.
3
¶6 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. The
District Court correctly denied Bailey’s motion, because the sentencing court may not
direct the administration of the prison’s visiting rules and restrictions for a particular
inmate. Nonetheless, the State having conceded that the conditions imposed in Bailey’s
judgment plainly do not apply to the terms of his incarceration, we direct counsel for the
State to provide the Department of Corrections with a copy of this opinion.
¶7 Affirmed.
/S/ BETH BAKER
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
4