State v. Doty, 13689
| Decision Date | 29 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 13689,13689 |
| Citation | 173 Mont. 233,566 P.2d 1388,34 St.Rep. 731 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Relator, v. Charles Ray DOTY, Respondent. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Douglas G. Harkin, argued, County Atty., Hamilton, for relator.
Garnaas, Hall, Riley & Pinsoneault, Missoula, J. Robert Riley, argued, Missoula, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding. Petitioner state of Montana seeks a writ of supervisory control or other appropriate relief directing the district court, Ravalli County, the Hon. Edward T. Dussault presiding, to vacate its order reversing the order of Justice of the Peace Ruth A. Daniels denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, and to substitute therefor an order affirming the denial of defendant's motion in the cause entitled State of Montana, Plaintiff v. Charles Ray Doty, Defendant, Criminal Cause No. C/1569, Ravalli County.
On April 15, 1976, defendant Charles Ray Doty was charged with the criminal offense of misdemeanor theft, pursuant to section 94-6-302, R.C.M.1947. The complaint was filed in the justice court, Ravalli County, before Justice of the Peace Ruth A. Daniels. Defendant Doty was found to be an officer of the Missoula City Police Department with approximately nineteen years of law enforcement experience.
On April 27, 1976, Doty appeared in Ravalli County justice court with his attorney, Harold Holt of Missoula, for arraignment. At that time, Doty entered a plea of not guilty. The court set June 16, 1976 as the date of trial. The trial date was subsequently continued to June 22, 1976. Doty conferred with his attorney on several occasions between the arraignment and the date of trial concerning his defense to the charge.
On June 17, 1976, following a telephone conversation with a friend, Doty telephoned Douglas Harkin, the Ravalli County attorney, and arranged for a meeting concerning the pending criminal action. Prior to the meeting, Doty attempted to contact his attorney of record for advice on the matter. Finding him unavailable, Doty consulted Missoula attorneys H. L. Garnaas and J. Robert Riley concerning the upcoming trial. He was advised the attorneys could not be prepared for trial upon such short notice. No further advice was given.
Doty proceeded to Hamilton to discuss the case with the county attorney, unaccompanied by counsel. The county attorney was apprised of the fact Doty was unable to reach his attorney prior to the meeting. During the discussion, the county attorney detailed the evidence he intended to use against Doty. The remainder of the conversation concerned the legal and non-legal ramifications of a change of plea to guilty and failure to so change the plea, although the substance of this portion of the conversation is unclear. Doty returned to Missoula to again seek the advice of his attorney, who was still not available. Doty did speak briefly with his attorney's partner, William Murray, who indicated he was insufficiently informed to be able to render advice. On that same afternoon, and without discussing the matter with his attorney of record, Doty returned to Hamilton. Approximately two hours after the meeting with the county attorney, he appeared in justice court unaccompanied by counsel, and withdrew his plea of not guilty, entering a plea of guilty in substitution. Doty was sentenced at that time.
On June 22, 1976, Doty filed a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, together with an affidavit in support of his motion. In sum, Doty alleged in his affidavit the change of plea was improvidently made, in that it was made without the advice of counsel, and that at the time of the change of plea, he was " * * * distraught, unable to think clearly or to fully appreciate the significance of his act * * *." A hearing was held on the motion on June 25, 1976. The motion was subsequently denied. The decision was appealed to the district court, the case being submitted on the record, including the transcript of the hearing held on June 25, 1976, and the briefs of the respective parties.
The district court on December 6, 1976, entered an order reversing the decision of the justice court and remanding it for a trial on the merits. It is from this order the state brings its application for a writ of supervisory control or other appropriate writ.
This Court is asked to determine whether the district court erred or abused its discretion in reversing the order of the justice court; in allowing withdrawal of the guilty plea; and ordering that a trial be had on the merits. Whether defendant Doty should have been permitted to discuss his case directly with the county attorney and shortly thereafter change his plea from not guilty to guilty without the assistance of his counsel of record is the focus of determination here.
The state of Montana has but a limited right of appeal in criminal cases. Such right to appeal is statutory, and is confined to certain specific and narrowly defined instances, set forth in section 95-2403, R.C.M.1947. The state has no statutory right of appeal from a district court order which, as here, has the effect of granting a defendant's motion to withdraw a plea of guilty. It is clear where a party has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law, and when there is no right of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Maldonado
...voluntarily and understandingly. Boykin v. Alabama, (1969), 395 U.S. 238, 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; State v. Doty, (1977), Mont., 566 P.2d 1388, 1391, 34 St.Rep. 731. A plea of guilty is invalid as not having been understandingly entered if the defendant was not informed of the ma......
-
State v. Campbell
...Doubt as to whether a plea of guilty was voluntarily or knowing should be resolved in favor of trial on merits. State v. Doty (1977), Mont.,566 P.2d 1388, 34 St.Rep. 731; State v. Casaras (1937), 104 Mont. 404, 66 P.2d 774. Denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is addressed to the so......
-
State v. Martz, 87-287
...only where an abuse of discretion has been shown. State v. Nance (1947), 120 Mont. 152, 164, 184 P.2d 554, 560; State v. Doty (1977), 173 Mont. 233, 566 P.2d 1388, 1390. We rely on the discretion of the trial court in denying the attempted withdrawal of the guilty Appellant contends that § ......
-
State v. Fox
...motion in compliance with this statute. Therefore, § 46-12-204, MCA, does not authorize his appeal.2 ¶ 14 Fox relies on State v. Doty (1977), 173 Mont. 233, 566 P.2d 1388, for the proposition that a district court has jurisdiction to review a justice court's denial of a motion to withdraw a......