State v. Lawrence

08/23/2016
DA 14-0720
Case Number: DA 14-0720
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 209N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH EDWARD LAWRENCE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC 12-127
Honorable James A. Haynes, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Chad Wright, Chief Appellate Defender, Kristen L. Peterson, Assistant
Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Mark W. Mattioli, Assistant
Attorney General, Agency Legal Services Bureau, Helena, Montana
William Fullbright, Ravalli County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 27, 2016
Decided: August 23, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James Jeremiah Shea 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 Joseph Edward Lawrence appeals his convictions of sexual assault and solicitation
in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County. Lawrence contends that his
conditional guilty plea, which reserved his right to appeal the District Court’s ruling on
his motion to sever, is invalid because the District Court did not rule on the motion to
sever before accepting the plea. The State concedes Lawrence’s argument, and agrees
that Lawrence’s plea and sentence must be vacated because the plea was invalid. See
State v. Rytky, 2006 MT 134, ¶¶ 8–10, 332 Mont. 364, 137 P.3d 530 (remanding with
instructions to vacate the entry of a defendant’s guilty plea and sentence because the
defendant reserved for appeal the district court’s ruling on a motion that was never
issued). We reverse and remand with instructions to the District Court to vacate the entry
of Lawrence’s guilty plea and sentence.
¶3 Because Lawrence’s plea is to be vacated, we do not consider Lawrence’s
alternative argument to vacate his sentence and remand for sentencing before a different
judge.
¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion
2
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 incorrect. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent
with this Opinion.
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
We Concur:
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
3