State v. Johnson

I N THE SUPREME CObRT OF THE STATE OF MON rANA
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
CLYDE ALLEN JOHNSON.
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-Fmt Jud~eial District.
In and for the County of Ravalli,
The Honorable Jeffrey tl. Langton, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
William F. Hooks, Appellate Defender Office, Helena, Montana; J.G.
Shoekley, Victor. Montana
For Respondent:
Joseph P. Ma/urek, Attorney General, Jennlfer Anders, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana; George H. Corn, Ravall~
County
.\ttomey. IIarnilton, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 8, 1998
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion ofthe Court
I1 Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3jc), Montaiia Supreme Court 1990 6ntlcmal
Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent but shall be filed as
a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,
Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to
West Group in the quarterly table of noneitable cases issued by this Court.
q7 This is an appeal by the defendant, Clyde Allen Johnson (Johnson), from the August
21, 1996 opinion and order of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County,
denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We hold that the issues raised by Johnson
in his appeal are moot. Therefore, we affirm.
Background
el3 On March 5, 1996, Johnson entered an AEford plea to a charge of attempted dehberatc
homicide and a plea of guilty to a charge of criminal endangerment in Ravalli County Cause
No. CR 95-81, These pleas were entered under the terms of a March 5, 1996 written plea
agreement (the plea agreement). The State had also previously charged Johnson in Ravalli
County Cause No. CR 94-57 with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent. He
was convicted of these charges following a jury trial on November 20 and 21, 1995, and this
conviction has been affirmed on appeal to this Court. State v. Johnson, 1998 MT 107, --
P2d 55 St. Rep.
74 As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend certain sentences
covering both Johnson's pleas in Cause No. C 95-81 and his conviction in Cause No. CX
94-57. Spec~fically, plea agreement. In pertinent part. prov~dedfor a reccmme``dat~on
the
of imprrsonment as follows:
Sexual Intercourse Without Consent 20 years
(In Cause No. CR 94-57)
Persisteat Felony Offender 30 years
Criminal Endangerment (1 Count) 10 years
Re Tom Stanley, Janet Stanley and
Don Porter
Weapon Enhancement 10 years
Attempted Deliberate Homicide
(1 Count) re Marlene Porter 20 years
Weapon Enhancement 10 years
To run consecutively for a total of 100 years
with 20 years of said term suspended
The Defendant will be denied parole eligibility and participation in
the supervised release program until he has served 20 years in Montana
State Prison.
15
' At the sentencing hearing the State and defense counsel recommended that the trial
court sentence Johnson in accordance with the plea agreement. The court sentenced Johnson
to a term of 20 years in the state prison on each of the three charges of sexual intercourse
without consent. to be served concurrently, with a parole restriction requiring the entire
sentence to be served. The court also imposed terms of 10 vears imprisonment on the
criminal endangerment charge, 20 years imprisonment on the attempted deliberate homicide
charge, and an additional 10 years on each count for use of a weapon. 'The court designated
Johnson as a persistent felony offender and enhanced the sentence with an additional term
of 30 years imprisonment. T'ne court &en imposed an additional restriction on parole
eligibility:
1 mrill separately require, in regard to the Criminal Endangerment and
-Attempted Deliberate Homicide sentencing [Cause No. CR 95-81]. that you
serve 20 years without parole; that to be served concurrently with the parole
restriction on Sexual Intercourse Without Consent [Cause KO. CR 94-57].
The Court's intent there is tlnat !understand y o ~may be appealing the
i
Sexual Intercourse Without Consent conviction. The Court's intent is that even
if that conviction should be overturned by some turn of fate, you will still be
serve [sic] 20 years without parole in regard to this particular offense.
[Cause No. CR 95-81] uere to he served
The sentences imposed for the shooting ~nctdent
consecutively, for a total of 100 years in prison, with 20 years suspended. Johnson is
ineligible for parole for 20 years.
76 Johnson objected to the parole restriction, and, ultimately, moved to withdram his
guilty plea in Cause No. CR 95-81 on the ground that it was his understanding when he
signed the plea agreement that the parole restriction in the plea agreement would not apply
in Cause No. CR 94-57. Specifically, Johnson contended that it was his belief that if his
conviction for sexual intercourse without consent in Cause No. 94-57 was overturned on
appeal, then the whole sentence would be reconsidered, and that if the plea agreement was
interpreted to provide othenvise, then he had entered into it upon a fundamental mistake or
misunderstanding as to the consequences of the agreement. The trial court disagreed and
denied Johnson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, concluding that the terms of the plea
agreement were clear and unambiguous and that Johnson's claimed belief to the contrary was
simply a "panic" reaction to what he in fact knew all along. This appeal followed
Discussion
#!7 On appeal Johnson arLguesthat the Districr Court erred and abused its discretion when
it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and that the court failed to adequately
interrogate and advise him prior to the entry of his plea in Cause No. CR 95-81. He also
contends that his guilty plea was entered upon a fundamental mistake or misnnderstanding
as to the application of the parole restriction. We conclude, however, that we need not
address Johnson's substantive arguments.
78 The underlying basis for Johnson's appeal is his claimed understanding that the plea
agreement reqtiircd rccanjideration of the parole restriction i m p ~ s e d part of the sentence
as
in Cause No. CR 95-81, if his conviction of certain other charges included under the plea
agreement--specifically the sexual intercourse without consent charges in Cause No. CR 94-
57--was overturned on appeal.
79 As indicated above, however, we have affirmed Johnson's conviction of the sexual
intercourse without consent charges in Cause No. CR 94-57. Accordingly, the issues which
he raises on appeal are effectively moot. Regardless of Johnson's belief, he will have to senrc
a minimum of 20 years before he is parole eligible whether or not the 20-year parole
restriction attaches to the sentence imposed in Cause No. CR 94-57 or Cause Lo. CR 95-81.
T10 Affirmed.
We Concur: