State v. Welty ( 2016 )

May 24 2016
DA 14-0451
Case Number: DA 14-0451
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 123N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
BRIAN WELTY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DC 13-329C
Honorable Heidi Ulbricht, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Chief Appellate Defender, Lisa S. Korchinski, Assistant
Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Pamela P. Collins, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Ed Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney, Kenneth R. Park, Deputy County
Attorney, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 6, 2016
Decided: May 24, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Laurie McKinnon 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 Brian Welty (Welty) appeals from a judgment and sentence entered by the
Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. We affirm.
¶3 In District Court Cause Number 13-329(C), the State charged Welty with two
counts of Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs, each being a felony in violation of
§ 45-9-101(1), MCA. The basis of the charges was an allegation that Welty, on two
separate occasions, sold, exchanged, or gave away heroin to a confidential informant. In
District Court Cause Number 13-426(C), the State charged Welty with Criminal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a felony in violation of § 45-9-102(1), MCA. Welty
initially pleaded not guilty to each of the three charges. On February 6, 2014, Welty
entered into a plea agreement whereby he agreed to plead guilty to one count of Criminal
Distribution of Dangerous Drugs and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining two
charges. Additionally, the State agreed to recommend a sentence to the District Court of
“ten (10) years Department of Corrections with five (5) years of those years suspended
and recommendation to Connections Corrections and Prerelease.”
2
¶4 On April 3, 2014, the District Court held a sentencing hearing. Stan Howe,
Ronald Clem (Clem), Floyd Welty, Kevin Welty, and Christine Kramer testified. Each
witness offered their opinion about which of three different placement options available
would be best for Welty to address his substance abuse issues: Connections Corrections,
Nexus Treatment Center (Nexus), or Teen Challenge Drug Addiction Treatment Center
(Teen Challenge).
¶5 Several of Welty’s family members testified. Floyd Welty, Welty’s grandfather,
testified that he thought Teen Challenge would be Welty’s best option for treatment
because it is a long-term treatment facility. Kevin Welty, Welty’s father, testified that he
also thought Teen Challenge would be best for Welty. Christine Kramer, Welty’s Aunt,
testified that Teen Challenge would be best for Welty because it offers the best
opportunity for success. She explained that the family would pay for Teen Challenge and
she would be willing to transport Welty to Spokane, where Teen Challenge is located.
¶6 In addition to Welty’s family, Stan Howe, the intake coordinator at Teen
Challenge, testified that Teen Challenge is a 12-month long unlocked residential facility
with a faith-based treatment program for people of all ages with life controlling
addictions. Stan Howe described Welty, at age 24, as “an ideal fit” for the program.
Clem, a retired Los Angeles-area police officer knowledgeable about drug treatment
facilities in Montana, testified that he was familiar with Connections Corrections, Nexus,
and Teen Challenge and discussed the differences among the treatment facilities. Clem
described Connections Corrections as “dismal” and too short-term to effectively treat
3
heroin addiction. Later, on cross-examination, the State asked whether Clem thinks
Nexus is a better program than Connections Corrections. Clem answered, “Absolutely I
do.” He cited Nexus’ “good” success rate and commented that “I’ve been through a tour
of their facility, it’s a great program, they have Job Service, they do a lot of great things.”
¶7 After the witnesses testified, the Court asked the State to clarify whether its
recommendation in the plea agreement for placement at Connections Corrections
remained the State’s recommendation to the Court. The State responded that it was,
adding, “however, in listening to Mr. Clem it sounds like maybe the Court could take into
consideration that Nexus might be a better alternative being a longer term facility.” The
Court inquired further, “so you’re sticking with the recommendation of the Connections
Corrections and not Nexus?” The State’s response was “I believe based on recent rulings
with the court we have to with the plea agreement. Now if the Court heard something
with the Nexus program that the Court likes better, it’s entirely up to you.”
¶8 On appeal, Welty argues the State violated the terms of the parties’ plea agreement
by soliciting testimony about alternative treatment options from Clem and reminding the
District Court that it could depart from its plea agreement recommendation of
Connections Corrections and sentence Welty to Nexus. Welty argues the State
“proffered a hollow recommendation” for Connections Corrections, giving only “lip
service” to the plea agreement, and advocated for placement at Nexus instead.
¶9 The issue raised on appeal is whether the State breached its plea agreement with
Welty by soliciting testimony for a different treatment program than the one it was
4
required to recommend. Whether the state breached a plea agreement is reviewed de
novo. State v. Manywhitehorses, 2010 MT 225, ¶ 10, 358 Mont. 46, 243 P.3d 412(citation omitted).
¶10 Welty admits that he did not raise this issue in the District Court but urges this
Court to exercise its discretionary plain error review. “Before this Court will find plain
error, the appealing party must: (1) show that the claimed error implicates a fundamental
right and (2) firmly convince this Court that failure to review the claimed error would
result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental
fairness of the trial or proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.”
State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 23, 381 Mont. 472, 362 P.3d 1126 (internal quotations
and citation omitted). On occasion, we have conducted plain error review of an
allegation that a plea agreement was breached “[b]ecause a defendant’s fundamental and
constitutional rights are implicated when he is induced to plead guilty by reason of a plea
agreement.” State v. Rardon, 2002 MT 345, ¶ 16, 313 Mont. 321, 61 P.3d 132 (citation
omitted). However, we will only find plain error if, under the second part of the test, the
Court is firmly convinced that the State’s alleged breach resulted in a manifest
miscarriage of justice, called into question the fundamental fairness of the trial or
proceedings, or compromised the integrity of the judicial process.
¶11 “Prosecutors, as well as defendant’s, are bound by the plea agreements they
make.” State v. Hill, 2009 MT 134, ¶ 29, 350 Mont. 296, 207 P.3d 307. “A prosecutor
must give more than lip service to her plea bargain. However, there are no hard and fast
5
criteria defining when a prosecutor has merely paid lip service to a plea agreement as
opposed to when she has fairly, but strongly, presented the State’s case.” Hill, ¶ 29.
¶12 Welty called Clem to testify and first asked whether he was familiar with
Connections Corrections, Nexus, and Teen Challenge. On appeal, the State argues Welty
initially questioned Clem on the different treatment facilities and “opened the door” to
the State’s cross-examination including asking whether Clem thought Nexus was a better
program than Connections Corrections and whether Nexus was a better choice for Welty
than Teen Challenge. We agree that Welty opened the door to Clem’s testimony
regarding his personal opinion of the varying attributes of the alternative treatment
facilities. The State did not proffer a hollow recommendation for Connections
Corrections or offer mere lip service to its plea agreement by cross-examining Clem
about his opinion of the facilities. Likewise, the State appropriately clarified its
recommendation and reminded the District Court that it was ultimately the Court’s
decision where Welty would be treated. The State did not breach its plea agreement with
Welty. Further, the claimed error is not a manifest miscarriage of justice or
fundamentally unfair, and it does not compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
Therefore, we find no plain error and decline to reverse.
¶13 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal
presents no issues of first impression and does not establish new precedent or modify
existing precedent.
6
¶14 Affirmed.
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
We concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JIM RICE
7