State v. Gray ( 1983 )

NO. 82- 288
I N TIIE SUPXE!'4E CC)U!?T O F THE STATF O F ?IOI.JTP.?JA
1983
STATE OF MONTAXA,
Plaintiff and R e s p o n d e n t ,
KA2EN I. GIWY,
D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t ,
Appeal from: The D l s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T h i r d J u d l c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f P o v ~ e l l The H o n o r a b l e
R o b e r t Boyd, J u d g e presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
I(arei1 I . G r a y , p r o s e t D e e r Lodge, l'lontana
F o r Kespondent :
Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y q e n e r a l , Ifelen?,
Montana
T e d M i z n e r , County A t t o r n e v , D e e r Lodge,
Montana
- - -
- -
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : April 21, 198-3
Decided: Play 1 9 , 1983
Filed: MAY 19 1983
%. -.. .
- - ..- -.
- .
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e O p i n i o n of the
Court.
D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s p r o s e from t h e s e n t e n c e s h e r e c e i v e d af t e r
s h e p l e d g u i l t y t o two c o u n t s of f e l o n y t h e f t .
On S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 , d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h two c o u n t s
of felony theft in the District Court of the Third Judicial
District, Powell County. Court I charged d e f e n d a n t had made
false s t a t e m e n t s t o P o w e l l County w e l f a r e e m p l o y e e s t o receive
f o o d s t a m p s i n t h e amount of $ 1 , 9 1 3 . Count I 1 c h a r g e d d e f e n d a n t
failed to report income accurately and fraudulently received
$3,067.60 i n AFDC p a y m e n t s . Defendant pled not g u i l t y t o both
counts.
Thereafter, in conjunction with a plea bargain, defendant
w i t h d r e w h e r p l e a s of n o t g u i l t y and p l e d g u i l t y t o b o t h c o u n t s
on May 2 0 , 1 9 8 2 . The s u b s t a n c e of t h e p l e a b a r g a i n was t h e S t a t e
a g r e e d t o recommend a s e n t e n c e of t h r e e y e a r s s u s p e n d e d i f d e f e n -
d a n t pled g u i l t y t o both counts. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d a
presentence investigation and set sentencing for J u l y 8, 1982.
On t h a t day defendant appeared a t the sentencing hearing, the
State recommended a three-year suspended sentence, and the
District Court ordered defendant serve t h r e e years i n p r i s o n w i t h
a l l but t h i r t y days suspended. The C o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d d e f e n -
dant make restitution to the State of Montana and serve the
t h i r t y d a y s i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l a t t h e r a t e of two d a y s p e r week.
Defendant a p p e a l s o n l y the t h i r ty-day sentence.
The s u b s t a n c e of t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l is:
1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n n o t i m p o s i n g s e n t e n c e
a s t h e S t a t e recommended.
2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was p r e j u d i c e d by t h e p r e s e n -
tence investigation report.
Defendant first contends the District Court erred by not
imposing a three-year suspended sentence as the State recom-
mended. T h i s Court h a s upheld t h e d i s c r e t i o n of the District
C o u r t i n s e n t e n c i n g a d e f e n d a n t who h a s p l e d g u i l t y a s p a r t of a
plea bargain i n S t a t e v. Mann ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 306, 546 P.2d
515. H e r e , d e f e n d a n t was i n f o r m e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t t h e
recommendation of the State was not binding upon the Court.
Defendant s t a t e d she understood. T h e r e f o r e , she must a c c e p t t h e
s e n t e n c e p r o n o u n c e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
N e x t , d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was p r e j u d i c e d by
the presentence investigation report. Most of d e f e n d a n t ' s o b j e c -
t i o n s s t e m from m a t e r i a l c o n t a i n e d i n p a r a g r a p h 9 o f t h e r e p o r t .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d p a r a g r a p h 9 s t r i c k e n from t h e r e p o r t
a t the sentencing hearing. I n S t a t e v. O r s b o r n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont.
4 8 0 , 486, 555 P.2d 5 0 9 , t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d , "A c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t
s t i l l h a s a due p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e a g a i n s t a s e n t e n c e p r e d i c a t e d
on m i s i n f o r m a t i o n . " For defendant to here claim she did not
r e c e i v e due p r o c e s s , s h e m u s t show t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o n o u n c e d
s e n t e n c e b a s e d upon m i s i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r e s e n t e n c e
investigation report. T h i s d e f e n d a n t h a s f a i l e d t o show. Sec-
t i o n 46-18-112, MCA, g o v e r n s t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e p r e s e n t e n c e in-
v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t and we f i n d w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of p a r a g r a p h 9 ,
w h i c h was s t r i c k e n , t h e r e p o r t c o m p l i e d w i t h t h i s s e c t i o n .
J u d g m e n t i s af f i r m e d .
ustice
* = J&& =
We concur:
I I
Ckief J u s t i c e