State v. Day ( 1981 )

No. 80-401
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS .
HAZEL LEE DAY,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth ~udicial~istrict,
In and for the County of Missoula
Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge.presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Hirst, Dostal & Withrow, Missoula, Montana
John Dostal argued, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Mary Troland argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula,
Montana
Ed McLean argued, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula,
Montana
- - pp
Submitted: September 14, 1981
Decided: October 22, 1981
Filed: OCT 2 2 598t
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.
his i s an a p p e a l by t h e d e f e n d a n t , Hazel Lee Day, from
an order of the D i s t r i c t Court, f o r t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l
~ i s t r i c t ,denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o withdraw h e r p l e a of
guilty. W e affirm.
On December 1 7 , 1979, d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d i n Missoula
County w i t h having committed a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t by s h o o t i n g
h e r former husband i n t h e c h e s t , s h o u l d e r and f a c e w i t h a
C o l t . 3 2 c a l i b e r weapon. Counsel was a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t
t h e d e f e n d a n t and on J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1980, a f t e r c o n s u l t i n g w i t h
c o u n s e l , t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h e
o f f e n s e charged. Defendant was s e n t e n c e d t o a t e r m of two
y e a r s i n p r i s o n w i t h t h e recommendation t h a t s h e b e t r a n s f e r r e d
t o t h e L i f e S k i l l s Training Center i n B i l l i n g s ; she i s
c u r r e n t l y on p a r o l e .
I n May 1980, d e f e n d a n t moved t o withdraw h e r p l e a based
upon t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t , a t t h e t i m e of e n t e r i n g h e r g u i l t y
p l e a , t h e d e f e n d a n t was i g n o r a n t of t h e p o t e n t i a l d e f e n s e of
j u s t i f i a b l e u s e of f o r c e . The t r i a l c o u r t a d m i t t e d l y d i d
n o t advise defendant with r e s p e c t t o the defense. The
a t t o r n e y who r e p r e s e n t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t a t t h e t i m e of t h e
e n t r y of p l e a , f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t s t a t i n g t h a t he had d i s c u s s e d
t h e d e f e n s e w i t h d e f e n d a n t and t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e
d e f e n s e was a v a i l a b l e t o h e r b u t c h o s e t o p l e a d g u i l t y .
Hazel Day i s a 64-year-old woman, b o r n i n W e s t V i r g i n i a ,
t o a c o a l mining f a m i l y . She was t h e o l d e s t of s e v e n c h i l d r e n
and q u i t s c h o o l i n t h i r d g r a d e t o h e l p c a r e f o r t h e r e s t of
h e r f a m i l y . When s h e was f o u r t e e n , h e r mother d i e d of t u b e r -
c u l o s i s and a t f i f t e e n h e r f a t h e r d i e d i n a c o a l mining
accident. A t sixteen, t h e defendant married, adopted f o u r
o f h e r b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s , and u l t i m a t e l y r e a r e d f i v e of
h e r own c h i l d r e n .
I n 1959, d e f e n d a n t d i v o r c e d h e r f i r s t husband and
r e m a r r i e d . H e r second husband d i e d i n 1966, when s t r u c k by a
c a r a l l e g e d l y d r i v e n by t h e d e f e n d a n t . Defendant p l e a d e d
g u i l t y t o m a n s l a u g h t e r and was s e n t e n c e d t o s i x y e a r s i n t h e
Maryland S t a t e P r i s o n . H e r c r i m i n a l r e c o r d from 1954 t o
1970, a l s o c o n t a i n s f o u r s e p a r a t e misdemeanor e v e n t s of
minor t h e f t s and d i s o r d e r l y c o n d u c t .
I n March of 1976, d e f e n d a n t m a r r i e d A t h o l "Ted" Day;
t h e y w e r e s e p a r a t e d a month l a t e r and d i v o r c e d i n March
1979. During t h e t h r e e y e a r s of m a r r i a g e , they cohabitated
f o r a b o u t t h r e e months. Ted had problems w i t h a l c o h o l
abuse. Defendant d e s c r i b e d him as seldom s o b e r and when
d r u n k , a v e r i t a b l e w i l d man. H e was p h y s i c a l l y a b u s i v e t o
defendant. I n 1977, Ted Day s t r u c k t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h e
back w i t h a t e l e p h o n e w i t h s u f f i c i e n t f o r c e t o c a u s e n e r v e
damage i n h e r r i g h t hand n e c e s s i t a t i n g s u r g e r y . I n t h e same
y e a r he a t t e m p t e d t o p u l l d e f e n d a n t ' s tongue from h e r mouth
requiring surgery. On a n o t h e r o c c a s i o n he threw a k n i f e a t
t h e defendant.
A f t e r t h e d i v o r c e Ted Day c o n t i n u e d t o c o n t a c t t h e de-
f e n d a n t , h a r a s s i n g h e r and t h r e a t e n i n g h e r . On Monday,
November 27, 1979, d e f e n d a n t came home from work a t a b o u t
4:00 p.m. and found h e r former husband a t h e r t r a i l e r home.
H e p e r s u a d e d d e f e n d a n t t o d r i v e him t o L o l o , Montana, f o r
t h e p u r p o s e of t r a n s a c t i n g some b u s i n e s s . On t h e r e t u r n
t r i p from Lolo, he p u r c h a s e d some b e e r a n d , a f t e r p u s h i n g
d e f e n d a n t from t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t , motored t o t h e R a t t l e s n a k e
a r e a n o r t h of M i s s o u l a , Montana. They remained t h e r e u n t i l
approximately 1 1 ~ 3 0
p.m. Ted drank a l l of t h e b e e r and t h e n
d r o v e t o a Missoula m o t e l where he o b t a i n e d a room. H e was
drunk and t h e d e f e n d a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e asked t o go home.
Ted pushed h e r up t h e s t a i r s t o t h e m o t e l room. She was
frightened. I n t h e m o t e l room he became v e r y a b u s i v e and
t o l d h e r t o remove h e r c l o t h e s . According t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
v e r s i o n , Ted t o r e o f f most of h e r c l o t h e s . When h e saw
d e f e n d a n t was n o t d r i n k i n g w i t h him, he began throwing food
and b e e r c a n s a l l o v e r t h e room. Ted t h e n took a p i s t o l
from d e f e n d a n t ' s p u r s e and, a c c o r d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t , r e q u e s t e d
h e r t o s h o o t him. H e t h e n l a i d t h e p i s t o l down on t h e n i g h t
t a b l e and began throwing d e f e n d a n t up a g a i n s t t h e w a l l . She
s t a t e d t h a t a f t e r s h e was h u r t s h e r e a c h e d f o r t h e p i s t o l
and p o i n t e d i t a t Ted t e l l i n g him n o t t o come c l o s e r .
Defendant s t a t e d t h a t he grabbed f o r h e r a g a i n and s h e s h o t
him s e v e r a l t i m e s . Ted was t a k e n t o t h e h o s p i t a l and
u l t i m a t e l y recovered.
A p u b l i c d e f e n d e r was a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e d e f e n d a n t .
She t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e t a l k e d t o h e r a t t o r n e y a p p r o x i m a t e l y
t h r e e t i m e s and t h a t he a d v i s e d h e r t o p l e a d g u i l t y . She
s t a t e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t remember h e r a t t o r n e y t a l k i n g t o h e r
about self-defense, b u t t h i s was d i s p u t e d by a n a f f i d a v i t
f i l e d by h e r a t t o r n e y . The a t t o r n e y s t a t e d he a d v i s e d t h e
d e f e n d a n t more t h a n once of h e r r i g h t t o s e l f - d e f e n s e and
t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e d e f e n s e was a v a i l a b l e t o h e r .
The a t t o r n e y s t a t e d t h a t s h e wished t o e n t e r a g u i l t y p l e a .
The d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a g u i l t y p l e a on J a n u a r y 1 0 ,
1980, b e f o r e Judge J a c k L. Green. On t h a t d a y , Judge Green
a d v i s e d d e f e n d a n t of t h e c h a r g e and t h e s t a t u t o r i l y mandated
punishment. He a d v i s e d h e r of h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ,
i n c l u d i n g r i g h t t o t r i a l by j u r y . A f t e r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was
r e a d t o h e r , t h e c o u r t a s k e d d e f e n d a n t i f s h e was p r e p a r e d
t o plead. She s t a t e d t h a t s h e was and s h e t h e n e n t e r e d h e r
p l e a of g u i l t y . The t r i a l c o u r t t h e n a s k e d d e f e n d a n t t o
r e l a t e i n h e r own words what had happened j u s t p r i o r t o t h e
i n c i d e n t i n q u e s t i o n and d e f e n d a n t summarized t h e f a c t s
which a r e s e t f o r t h i n t h i s o p i n i o n .
The p l e a was a c c e p t e d and d e f e n d a n t was t h e r e a f t e r sen-
t e n c e d on F e b r u a r y 25, 1980, b e f o r e Judge John S. Henson.
The s e n t e n c i n g judge had t h e b e n e f i t of a p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t
c o n t a i n i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e
shooting incident. A f t e r reviewing t h e presentence r e p o r t ,
Judge Henson s e n t e n c e d d e f e n d a n t t o two y e a r s i n t h e Montana
S t a t e P r i s o n w i t h t h e recommendation t h a t s h e be t r a n s f e r r e d
t o t h e L i f e S k i l l s T r a i n i n g C e n t e r i n B i l l i n g s , Montana.
The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
p l e a was v o l u n t a r y . The t r i a l c o u r t found i t was. W e find
no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n .
A g u i l t y p l e a must be e n t e r e d v o l u n t a r i l y and w i t h an
understanding of t h e charge. Defendant must u n d e r s t a n d t h e
consequences of t h e p l e a and t h e maximum p e n a l t y p r o v i d e d by
t h e law f o r t h e o f f e n s e . S t a t e v. Doty ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont.
233, 237, 566 P.2d 1388, 1391. I n Yother v . S t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
- ,
14ont. - 597 P.2d 79, 83, 36 St.Rep. 1192, 1197, t h i s
Court said:
"The s t a n d a r d by which t h e v a l i d i t y of a g u i l t y p l e a
i s judged i s whether t h e p l e a r e p r e s e n t s a v o l u n t a r y
and i n t e l l i g e n t c h o i c e among t h e a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s
of a c t i o n open t o t h e d e f e n d a n t a s a f f i r m a t i v e l y
d i s c l o s e d by t h e r e c o r d . "
The g r a n t i n g o r d e n i a l of a motion t o withdraw a p l e a
of g u i l t y l i e s w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l
judge and w i l l b e r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l o n l y upon a showing of
a b u s e of t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . S t a t e v. Nelson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , --Mont. -I
603 P.2d 1050, 1053, 36 St.Rep. 2228, 2232. Defendant
c o n t e n d s t h a t d i s c r e t i o n was abused i n t h a t (1) t h e t r i a l
c o u r t s h o u l d have r e c o g n i z e d d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e
f a c t s a s b e i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p l e a of g u i l t y and ( 2 )
t h e t r i a l c o u r t , under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , had a d u t y t o
advise the defendant regarding self-defense.
W do n o t f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e f a c t s t o
e
be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p l e a of g u i l t y . The t r i a l c o u r t
c o u l d have found, a f t e r l i s t e n i n g t o t h e f a c t s r e c i t e d , t h a t
t h e d e f e n d a n t used e x c e s s i v e f o r c e under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
I n o t h e r words t h e j u r y c o u l d f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t , having a
l o a d e d weapon, c o u l d have removed h e r s e l f from t h e danger of
t h e m o t e l room. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t had e v i d e n c e
b e f o r e i t which tended t o c a s t d o u b t upon d e f e n d a n t ' s c r e d i -
bility.
The t r i a l c o u r t found, and t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e
evidence t o support t h e finding, t h a t defendant, a f t e r
c o n s u l t i n g w i t h c o u n s e l , c h o s e t o e n t e r a p l e a of g u i l t y
r a t h e r t h a n s u b j e c t h e r s e l f t o t h e u n c e r t a i n t y of a t r i a l .
The f a c t s i n t h i s r e c o r d do n o t make i t incumbent upon
t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o advise t h e defendant regarding s t a t u t o r y
defenses p o t e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e t o t h e defendant. Defendant
was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l and c o u n s e l , a c c o r d i n g t o h i s
a f f i d a v i t , p r o p e r l y d i s c h a r g e d h i s d u t y by d i s c u s s i n g t h e s e
defenses with h i s c l i e n t . A d i s c u s s i o n of d e f e n s e s t r a t e g y
g o e s beyond t h e r e a l m of t r i a l c o u r t d u t y . I f t r i a l courts
had t o d i s c u s s p o t e n t i a l d e f e n s e s w i t h a n a c c u s e d , t h e judge
would have t o a d v i s e t h e accused r e g a r d i n g p o t e n t i a l c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l challenges, a s w e l l a s affirmative defenses e x i s t i n g
under s t a t u t e s . These r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s p r o p e r l y a r e v e s t e d
i n d e f e n s e c o u n s e l and n o t i n t h e t r i a l judge.
W e f i n d t h a t t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o
support the t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o set a s i d e defendant's
p l e a of g u i l t y . ~ e f e n d a n t ' sf a c t u a l r e c i t a t i o n was g i v e n i n
m i t i g a t i o n of s e n t e n c e and d i d n o t c o n f l i c t w i t h h e r p l e a of
guilty. According t o d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s a f f i d a v i t , d e f e n d a n t
was fully informed regarding the defense of "self-defense",
and with a full understanding entered a plea of guilty. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to set
aside defendant's plea under these circumstances.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
We Concur:
1.
.
Chief Justice
Justices
Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea will file a dissent later.