State v. Hendrickson

• Decision Date: 20 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. DA 13–0052.,DA 13–0052.
• Citation: State v. Hendrickson, 375 Mont. 136, 325 P.3d 694 (Mont. 2014)
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Julian James HENDRICKSON, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

375 Mont. 136

325 P.3d 694

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Julian James HENDRICKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA 13–0052.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs March 26, 2014.

Decided May 20, 2014.

For Appellant: Wade Zolynski, Chief Appellate Defender; Gregory Hood, Assistant Appellate Defender; Helena, MT.

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General; Pamela P. Collins, Assistant Attorney General; Helena, MT, Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney; Shawn Thomas, Deputy County Attorney; Missoula, MT.

Justice BETH BAKERdelivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1Julian James Hendrickson appeals the judgment of the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court.The sole issue is whether the District Court erred when it denied Hendrickson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.We affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 On February 8, 2012, Jenny LaTray reported to law enforcement that her ex-boyfriend, Hendrickson, had entered her residence without permission and assaulted her the previous night.LaTray told the officers that Hendrickson had crawled through her bedroom window at night, punched her repeatedly in the head and face, and choked her for over an hour.LaTray reported that Hendrickson had threatened to beat her again if she reported the incident to the police, and that he forced her to write a list of the names and addresses of family and friends that would allow him to find her if she ever told anyone about the assault.The responding officers observed visible injuries on LaTray.The crime scene corroborated her story.

¶ 3The State charged Hendrickson by information on March 22, 2012, with aggravated burglary and tampering with witnesses and informants.During arraignment, the District Court told Hendrickson that the charges against him carried a maximum penalty of fifty years and a $100,000 fine.Hendrickson told the court that he understood and pleaded not guilty to both counts.The State did not file a notice of intent to pursue a persistent felony offender (PFO) designation or otherwise indicate that it intended to pursue a PFO designation.Hendrickson was released on pretrial supervision.

¶ 4 Between February 8, 2012, and May 9, 2012, LaTray gave four taped statements to law enforcement.In her first two statements, she maintained that Hendrickson broke into her residence and assaulted her.On May 1, she recanted those statements and stated that another man, named John Dean or John Gibson, actually assaulted her.On May 9, she returned to her original story and explained that she had invented the statements about the other man.

¶ 5 While Hendrickson was released on bond, he was arrested for allegedly placing several telephone calls to LaTray in violation of the conditions of his release.On May 30, Hendrickson made a recorded phone call from jail to his current girlfriend, Natalie Fleming, in which he seemed to suggest that Fleming should try to take the blame for contacting LaTray.Based on the recording of this call, the State filed an amended information on August 1, 2012, charging Hendrickson with an additional count of tampering with witnesses and informants.

¶ 6The State offered that in return for a plea of guilty on the tampering charge for the call to Fleming, the State would not pursue the other charges and would recommend a total sentence of ten years with eight suspended.The agreement would allow Hendrickson to argue for a ten-year commitment with all ten years suspended.Additionally, the State agreed not to file a petition to revoke Hendrickson's conditional pre-trial release based on positive urinalysis tests for methamphetamine.The State informed him that if the plea negotiations failed, the State would file another amended information to add several new charges against him, including sexual intercourse without consent and aggravated assault.

¶ 7 Hendrickson ultimately agreed to the State's offer and the agreement was reduced to writing.He signed a document entitled “Plea of Guilty and Waiver of Rights,” which stated that “[t]he maximum possible punishment provided by law for the above-named offense is: State Prison not to exceed 10 years and/or fine of $50,000.”A line in the document regarding the potential for sentence enhancement for previous offenses was marked as inapplicable.

¶ 8 Hendrickson appeared in court for a change of plea hearing on August 1, 2012.During the court's colloquy, the court explained the charge against Hendrickson and told him, “You understand that you are now charged with the offense of tampering with witnesses and informants.That's a felony.That carries up to a potential of ten years in the State prison and/or a $50,000 fine.Do you understand that?”Hendrickson explained that he understood the charge and the consequences of changing his plea.He stated that he was not impaired by alcohol or drugs and that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney, John Smith.Hendrickson summarized the factual basis for the plea, stating, “I purposely induced Natalie into testifying falsely.”Smith stated that the plea was free and voluntary.The court accepted Hendrickson's guilty plea.

¶ 9 After the plea was entered by the court, LaTray contacted the law firm representing Hendrickson to recant her story again—this time claiming that Hendrickson had not beaten her or called her afterward.LaTray recorded another taped statement with Smith where she claimed that Fleming, not Hendrickson, had been the one to call her.Hendrickson engaged new counsel and moved to withdraw his guilty plea based on “new evidence” from LaTray's most recent version of the events giving rise to the charges against him.The State opposed the motion.

¶ 10 In his reply brief, Hendrickson made an additional argument that his plea was involuntary because his previous counsel, Smith, had incorrectly explained to Hendrickson that he faced mandatory PFO sentence enhancements because he previously had been convicted of a felony for tampering with a witness.Smith's affidavit, filed with the reply brief, stated that he incorrectly told Hendrickson that, if convicted, he faced a mandatory, consecutive five to one hundred years in prison for being a PFO.Because Hendrickson had completed a deferred imposition of sentence on his prior felony offense and successfully moved to dismiss the charge, he was not eligible for PFO designation.Smith attested that his incorrect legal advice was a significant factor in Hendrickson's decision to plead guilty.

¶ 11The District Court denied Hendrickson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.The court noted that, “[a]t most, what has been presented here, is that LaTray keeps changing her story.”The court pointed out that the witness with whom Hendrickson agreed he had tampered was Fleming, not LaTray.The court agreed that if Smith had told Hendrickson that he faced a sentence enhancement based on his potential for designation as a PFO, the advice was incorrect.The court noted, however, that Hendrickson signed a plea agreement form and a waiver of rights, and engaged in a proper colloquy at his change of plea hearing.The court also observed that Smith's advice correctly determined that there was a substantial risk of significantly more punishment if the plea was rejected—up to 160 years if convicted on all charges the State intended to pursue.The court concluded that the plea was not involuntary and that Hendrickson could not demonstrate good cause for allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea.Hendrickson appeals the court's decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 12This Court reviews a district court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea de novo, because whether a plea was entered voluntarily is a mixed question of law and fact.State v. Valdez–Mendoza,2011 MT 214, ¶ 12, 361 Mont. 503, 260 P.3d 151.We review the trial court's underlying factual findings for clear error.State v. Warclub,2005 MT 149, ¶ 23, 327 Mont. 352, 114 P.3d 254.We review for correctness the district court's interpretation of the law and its application of the law to the facts.Warclub,¶ 23.

DISCUSSION

¶ 13 Hendrickson contends that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea for two related reasons.First, he argues that his plea was involuntary because his attorney misinformed him about his PFO eligibility.Second, he argues that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel for the same reason.This second argument asserts a stand-alone ineffective assistance claim that was not presented to the District Court and we decline to address the issue on appeal.State v. McFarlane,2008 MT 18, ¶ 12, 341 Mont. 166, 176 P.3d 1057.Hendrickson does not appeal the denial of his motion on the ground that LaTray's most recent statement amounted to “new evidence.”

¶ 14 The remaining issue is whether good cause exists to allow Hendrickson to withdraw his guilty plea because his counsel incorrectly advised him that he was PFO eligible.Pursuant to § 46–16–105(2), MCA, a court may for good cause permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted within one year after the judgment becomes final.“Good cause” includes the involuntariness of the plea, but it may include other reasons.Warclub,¶ 16.To prove that a plea was involuntary, “allegations of having had certain mental impressions at the time of the plea must be supported by objective proof in the record.”State v. Brinson,2009 MT 200, ¶ 12, 351 Mont. 136, 210 P.3d 164(quotingState v. Humphrey,2008 MT 328, ¶¶ 23, 346 Mont. 150, 194 P.3d 643).It is the defendant's obligation to provide such proof.SeeState v. Robinson,2009 MT 170, ¶¶ 17–18, 350 Mont. 493, 208 P.3d 851.If any doubt exists on the basis of the evidence presented regarding whether a guilty plea was voluntarily or intelligently made, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the defendant.State v. Melone,2000 MT 118, ¶ 14, 299 Mont. 442, 2 P.3d 233.

¶ 15This Court ut...