State v. Haldane

Decision Date12 February 2013
Docket NumberNo. DA 12–0055.,DA 12–0055.
PartiesSTATE Of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Mark Andrew HALDANE, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

For Appellant: Wade Zolynski, Chief Appellate Defender, Jennifer A. Hurley, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana.

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Pamela P. Collins, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Kyla C. Murray, City Prosecutor, City of Bozeman, Bozeman, Montana.

Justice PATRICIA O. COTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

[368 Mont. 397]¶ 1 Mark Andrew Haldane (Haldane) was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) following a jury trial in the City of Bozeman Municipal Court. He appealed to the District Court. Haldane appeals from an order of Montana's Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, affirming the Municipal Court's denial of Haldane's motion to suppress that had challenged the particularized suspicion to stop Haldane based on the obstruction of a license plate. Haldane also asserts that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to elicit certain testimony from the officers at trial and not renewing the motion to suppress once those facts were elicited. Lastly, Haldane challenges his sentence on the grounds that it violated his due process rights because it was based on his indigency. We affirm the District Court's denial of Haldane's motion to dismiss, reject his ineffective assistance of counsel arguments, vacate his sentence on due process grounds, and remand for entry of a new sentence that comports with due process concerns.

ISSUES

¶ 2 Haldane raises the following three issues on appeal:

¶ 3 1. Was Haldane's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizure violated when officers stopped his car based on an obstruction of his temporary registration permit by snow and a trailer hitch?

¶ 4 2. Did Haldane's counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to properly investigate and elicit testimony at the suppression hearing that the officers could in fact read the temporary permit, and later for failing to renew the motion to suppress once the officer testified at trial that he could read the permit?

[368 Mont. 398]¶ 5 3. Did Haldane's sentence violate due process because it was based on indigency?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 6 On January 12, 2011, City of Bozeman police officers Lindsay Shepherd and Hal Richardson executed a traffic stop of a car driven by Haldane. Officer Richardson was a field training officer and was assigned to supervise Officer Shepherd, who was in the second phase of field training at the time of the stop. Officer Shepherd was driving and Officer Richardson was in the passenger seat of the patrol car. The officers encountered Haldane's vehicle as it was stopped at a red light at the intersection of 23rd Street and Main Street in Bozeman, Montana. When the officers pulled up behind Haldane's vehicle, they noticed that its license plate was obstructed by snow and a trailer hitch. The officers observed that snow had built up at the base of the license plate well, which prevented the officers from viewing the digits on Haldane's temporary license plate. It was not actively snowing and had not snowed for at least a day prior to the traffic stop.

¶ 7 Police officers use the license plate number of a vehicle to check its registration using the Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) in their patrol vehicles. The MDT allows officersto connect to the dispatch center. Running license plate numbers through the MDT provides officers with information about the vehicle and its owner, and is commonly used to verify whether a vehicle's registration is current.

¶ 8 Haldane was driving a black Ford Explorer at the time of the stop. Haldane had purchased the vehicle two days prior to the stop from a local auto dealer. The auto dealer provided Haldane with a temporary registration and affixed a temporary plate. The ball trailer hitch was attached to the vehicle at the time of purchase. Haldane claims that he was unaware that his temporary plate was obstructed in any way.

¶ 9 Officer Shepherd initiated the traffic stop as Haldane turned onto St. Estephe Drive. Officer Shepherd approached the vehicle and asked Haldane for his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Haldane was only able to produce his driver's license. Officer Richardson noticed that Haldane was “fervently” smoking a cigarette and had red, bloodshot eyes. Both officers returned to the patrol car to verify Haldane's license. When the officers re-approached Haldane's vehicle to return his license, Officer Richardson asked Haldane how many drinks he had that night. According to Officer Richardson, Haldane slurred and responded, “two to three beers.” Officer Richardson conducted field sobriety tests and noted multiple signs of impairment during the maneuvers, including Haldane's inability to properly recite the alphabet. Haldane refused to submit to a breathalyzer test and became belligerent.

¶ 10 Haldane was arrested and charged with the following three offenses: (1) DUI in violation of § 61–8–401, MCA; (2) Driving with an Obstructed Plate in violation of § 61–3–301, MCA; and (3) Operating a Motor Vehicle without Liability Insurance in violation of § 61–6–301, MCA. On May 5, 2011, Haldane filed a motion in Municipal Court to suppress evidence based on a lack of particularized suspicion to conduct the investigative stop. On May 26, 2011, the Municipal Court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. Officers Shepherd and Richardson testified at the hearing. Neither officer was able to recall how Haldane's registration was verified.

¶ 11 Following the evidentiary hearing, the Municipal Court issued an order on June 1, 2011, denying Haldane's motion to suppress. On June 21, 2011, Haldane was found guilty of DUI, first offense, in violation of § 61–8–401, MCA, following a jury trial. The State chose not to pursue the obstructed plates and no insurance charges against Haldane. At trial, both officers testified that the license plate was obstructed by snow and the ball hitch. Officer Richardson recalled that once he approached the vehicle and changed his vantage point, he was able to read the numbers on the license plate.

¶ 12 On June 29, 2011, the Municipal Court sentenced Haldane for the DUI offense. Originally, the Municipal Court discussed sentencing Haldane to six months in the Gallatin County Detention Center with all but three days suspended, ordering fines totaling $935, and imposing other sentencing conditions. Later in the sentencing hearing, the length of Haldane's suspended sentence was doubled to one year to allow Haldane more time to make the monthly payments. The Municipal Court instituted a payment plan for the fines and fees that allowed Haldane to pay $100 per month.

¶ 13 Haldane appealed his conviction to the District Court. Specifically, Haldane challenged the Municipal Court's denial of his motion to suppress, denial of his motion for a mistrial for wrongfully impaneling the jury, and decision to sustain the State's objection to the defense's attempt to impeach Officer Richardson on cross-examination. The District Court affirmed the Municipal Court on all grounds. Of relevance here, the District Court held that the testimony of the officers was credible and sufficient to support the finding of particularized suspicion for the stop.

¶ 14 Haldane appeals the District Court's order affirming the Municipal Court's rulings and the jury's verdict. Haldane also raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and challenges his sentence on due process grounds.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 15 When reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we determine whether the findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether the court correctly interpreted the law and applied it to those facts. State v. Anders, 2012 MT 62, ¶ 9, 364 Mont. 316, 274 P.3d 720;State v. Spaulding, 2011 MT 204, ¶ 13, 361 Mont. 445, 259 P.3d 793;State v. Hafner, 2010 MT 233, ¶ 12, 358 Mont. 137, 243 P.3d 435.

¶ 16 We review de novo the mixed questions of law and fact presented by claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Ariegwe v. State, 2012 MT 166, ¶ 13, 365 Mont. 505, 285 P.3d 424;State v. Edwards, 2011 MT 210, ¶ 13, 361 Mont. 478, 260 P.3d 396.

¶ 17 We review a sentence of less than one year of actual incarceration for both legality and abuse of discretion. City of Billings v. Edward, 2012 MT 186, ¶ 17, 366 Mont. 107, 285 P.3d 523;State v. Breeding, 2008 MT 162, ¶ 10, 343 Mont. 323, 184 P.3d 313. In reviewing the legality of a sentence, we look to whether the sentencing court had statutory authority to impose the sentence and whether the sentence falls within statutory parameters. Breeding, ¶ 10;State v. Stephenson, 2008 MT 64, ¶ 15, 342 Mont. 60, 179 P.3d 502. This determination is a question of law and, as such, our review is de novo. Stephenson, ¶ 15. A sentencing court abuses its discretion when it acts “arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice.” Edward, ¶ 17;Breeding, ¶ 10. This Court reviews de novo whether a district court violated a defendant's constitutional rights at sentencing. State v. Bullplume, 2011 MT 40, ¶ 10, 359 Mont. 289, 251 P.3d 114;State v. Hill, 2009 MT 134, ¶ 20, 350 Mont. 296, 207 P.3d 307.

DISCUSSION

¶ 18 Was Haldane's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizure violated when officers stopped his car based on an obstruction of his temporary registration permit by snow and a trailer hitch?

¶ 19 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. LeMay, 2011 MT 323, ¶ 61, 363 Mont. 172, 266 P.3d 1278;State v. Larson, 2010 MT 236, ¶ 19, 358 Mont. 156, 243...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Keefe
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 8 Enero 2021
    ...130, 136 P.3d 507 ). ¶11 We review de novo whether a district court violated a defendant's constitutional rights at sentencing. State v. Haldane , 2013 MT 32, ¶ 17, 368 Mont. 396, 300 P.3d 657 (citations omitted).DISCUSSION¶12 This case involves the resentencing of Keefe for a triple homici......
  • State v. Kelm
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 30 Abril 2013
    ...interpreted the law and applied it to those facts.” State v. Nixon, 2013 MT 81, ¶ 15, 369 Mont. 359, 298 P.3d 408 (quoting State v. Haldane, 2013 MT 32, ¶ 15, 368 Mont. 396, 300 P.3d 657). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is “not supported by substantial evidence, if the court h......
  • Stokes v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 12 Febrero 2013
  • State v. Nixon
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 26 Marzo 2013
    ...the findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether the court correctly interpreted the law and applied it to those facts.” State v. Haldane, 2013 MT 32, ¶ 15, 368 Mont. 396, 300 P.3d 657 (citing State v. Anders, 2012 MT 62, ¶ 9, 364 Mont. 316, 274 P.3d 720). A factual finding is clearly......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT