State v. Huttinger

Decision Date22 May 1979
Docket NumberNo. 14546,14546
Citation36 St.Rep. 945,595 P.2d 363,182 Mont. 50
PartiesThe STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Brad William HUTTINGER, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

Ralph T. Randono argued, Great Falls, for defendant and appellant.

Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., Helena, Chris Tweeten argued, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, J. Fred Bourdeau, County Atty., Great Falls, for plaintiff and respondent.

DALY, Justice.

Defendant Brad Huttinger appeals from the order of the District Court of Cascade County, the Honorable H. William Coder, denying his motion to withdraw a plea of guilty to the charge of deliberate homicide. The District Court postponed sentencing pending the final disposition of this appeal. Huttinger remains at Warm Springs State Hospital where he was sent pending sentencing.

On July 9, 1976, Huttinger was charged with the crimes of deliberate homicide and aggravated kidnapping in the stabbing death of an elderly Great Falls woman. The District Court ordered a psychiatric evaluation of Huttinger which was conducted on August 4, 1976. The reporting psychiatrist, Dr. Ronald Hughes, concluded that on the date of the crimes charged that Huttinger, although under the influence of a variety of psychoactive drugs, "knew the difference between right and wrong insofar as it is related to the charges against him" and did not "lack the ability to adhere to the right." (Ultimately, however, Dr. Hughes recommended that Huttinger be hospitalized in the maximum security ward at Warm Springs State Hospital.)

On December 3, 1976, Huttinger entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. On February 14, 1977, Huttinger allegedly changed his plea to guilty on the charge of deliberate homicide in exchange for a dismissal of the charge of aggravated kidnapping.

Immediately after the February 14 proceedings, Huttinger was sent to Warm Springs State Hospital for a complete psychiatric evaluation. The examining psychiatrist, Dr. William Alexander, concluded:

"Summary: There is no evidence of organic involvement. Patient is felt to be psychotic because of his flat affect, his intellectual deterioration, and his inability to handle abstract concepts. His actual illness is quite well encapsulated. He seems to be a compulsive type who has a great deal of internal hostility which is barely controlled most of the time. He has a great difficulty in trying to sort out his feelings about his normal passivity in relationship to the occasional outbursts of aggression. There is a great deal of anxiety which is related to his fears of losing control over himself.

"Patient is aware of the nature of the charges against him and has the ability to assist his lawyer in his own defense. He is also aware of the criminality of his actions. Because of his severe emotional problems he has been unable to conduct himself according to the requirements of the law. He is able to have a particular state of mind which is an element of the offense charged.

"Diagnosis: Schizophrenia, paranoid type."

In a clarifying letter received on July 25, 1977, Dr. Alexander wrote to the District Court "In my opinion, at the time of the incident, this patient was unable to conduct himself according to the requirements of the law because of his severe, chronic, emotional illness which probably started in very early childhood but was certainly present eight years ago, and for which he has, to my knowledge, never received treatment."

On September 1, 1977, the District Court sentenced Huttinger to 100 years in prison without parole. Huttinger appealed the sentence and on April 10, 1978, this Court, in an unreported per curiam order, vacated the sentence pursuant to a stipulation of counsel and remanded the case for resentencing.

Huttinger thereafter filed a Motion for Leave of Court for Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty on May 26, 1978. At a hearing on this motion, Huttinger asserted that, prior to originally entering his plea of guilty to the charge of deliberate homicide, he had not been informed of the availability of the possible defense of insanity or that other factors present at the time of the crime charged might serve to mitigate his sentence. The State presented testimony of Huttinger's attorneys at the time of entry of his plea of guilty to the effect that they had discussed the insanity defense with Huttinger and he had rejected it.

On August 10, 1978, the District Court entered findings, conclusions, and an order denying Huttinger's motion. Huttinger appeals.

The issue presented for this Court's review is:

Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Huttinger's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty?

This appeal requires a balancing of three conflicting factors or aspects involved in a criminal defendant's attempt to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty. The three factors of which we speak are (1) the adequacy of the interrogation by the District Court of the defendant at the entry of the guilty plea as to the defendant's understanding of the consequences of his plea, (2) the promptness with which the defendant attempts to withdraw the prior plea, and (3) the fact that the defendant's plea was apparently the result of a plea bargain in which the guilty plea was given in exchange for dismissal of another charge, in this case, aggravated kidnapping, a felony. All three factors, among others, have been discussed in previous cases as considerations in the determination of whether a District Court should allow the withdrawal of a guilty plea.

Before discussing these particular factors, we first state some general principles governing the withdrawal of a guilty plea. The right of a criminal defendant to a trial by jury is safeguarded by Art. II, Sections 24 and 26 of the 1972 Montana Constitution. Section 95-1606(e), R.C.M.1947, now section 46-12-204 MCA, states in part:

"The defendant shall enter a plea of guilty or not guilty to the indictment, information or complaint. If the defendant refuses to plead to the indictment, information or complaint a plea of not guilty must be entered.

"The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty and shall not accept the plea of guilty without first determining that the plea is voluntary with an understanding of the charge."

More specifically, section 95-1902, R.C.M.1947, now section 46-16-105(2) MCA, states in part:

"At any time before or after judgment the court may for good cause shown permit the plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted."

"There is no set rule or standard which can be relied on in any given case where a motion is made to withdraw a guilty plea." State v. Lewis (1978), Mont., 582 P.2d 346, 352, 35 St.Rep. 1089, 1096. "Each case must be examined on its own record . . . " State v. Griffin (1975), 167 Mont. 11, 21, 535 P.2d 498, 503.

"The granting or refusal of permission to withdraw a plea of guilty and substitute a plea of not guilty rests in the discretion of the trial court and is subject to review only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Nance (1947), 120 Mont. 152, 184 P.2d 554.

"A plea of guilty will be deemed involuntary where it appears that the defendant was laboring under such a strong inducement, fundamental mistake, or serious mental condition that the possibility exists he may have plead guilty to a crime of which he is innocent." State ex rel. Gladue v. Eighth Judicial District (1978), Mont., 575 P.2d 65, 66, 35 St.Rep. 220, 221-22.

If, however, there is any doubt that a plea is not voluntary, the doubt should be resolved in the defendant's favor. On application to change a plea, all doubts should be resolved in favor of a trial on the merits. State v. Doty (1977), Mont., 566 P.2d 1388, 1391, 34 St.Rep. 731, 734.

With these general principles in mind, we proceed to an examination of the three factors described above.

Adequacy of District Court's Interrogation. For ease of analysis, we find it helpful to set forth the Complete transcript of the hearing at which Huttinger allegedly made his guilty plea:

"THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, this Court will now be in session. This is the State of Montana against Brad William Huttinger, Cause No. 6857 A. Mr. Barron, you are representing the defendant, Mr. Huttinger, in this matter?

"MR. BARRON: I do.

"THE COURT: And it is of course understood at this point in time you wish to enter a change of plea in this case; is that correct?

"MR. BARRON: Yes, your Honor. Mr. Huttinger would ask leave to withdraw his plea of Not Guilty to Deliberate Homicide.

"THE COURT: You understand what a plea of guilty entails in this matter, do you not, Mr. Huttinger?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes; I do.

"THE COURT: You understand that change of plea, you waive your right to remain silent? You understand that?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You understand that you waive your right to counsel to represent you in this matter? You understand that?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You waive your right to a jury trial, you understand that?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You also understand that you waive your right to compel attendance of witnesses to appear and testify on your behalf; you understand that?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: You understand the penalty for Deliberate Homicide in the State of Montana is imprisonment in the Montana State Prison, Deer Lodge, for a term not to exceed one hundred years; you understand that?

"MR. HUTTINGER: Yes.

"THE COURT: It is also the court's understanding, Mr. Barron, that there have been some negotiations with regard to dismissal of the other count of Aggravated Kidnapping; is that correct?

"MR. BARRON: That is correct, your Honor. We are informed by Mr. Bourdeau he will dismiss the Aggravated Kidnapping charge.

"THE COURT: Mr. Bourdeau?

"MR. BOURDEAU: Yes, your Honor. At this time the prosecution will orally move the Court for permission to dismiss the charge of Aggravated Kidnapping heretofore filed in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • State v. Deserly
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • July 8, 2008
    ...this standard).1 ¶ 13 In adopting the Brady standard, we also jettisoned the balancing test articulated in State v. Huttinger, 182 Mont. 50, 595 P.2d 363 (1979). See Lone Elk, ¶¶ 12, 23. Under that test, we balanced the following three factors to determine whether good cause existed to perm......
  • Sober v. Crist
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • June 28, 1982
    ...State v. Lewis, 177 Mont. 474, 582 P.2d 346 (1978), would probably be applied retroactively to petitioner here. See State v. Huttinger, 182 Mont. 50, 595 P.2d 363, 369 (1979) (citations omitted). The Court does not believe the rules cited by Azure and Lewis were ignored or slighted in petit......
  • Goodover v. Lindey's Inc.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1990
    ... ... State v. Sharbono (1977), 175 Mont. 373, 387, 563 P.2d 61, 69, quoting State v. Crean (1911), 43 Mont. 47, 59, 114 P. 603, 607. Goodover's testimony ... ...
  • Yother v. State, 14412
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1979
    ...582 P.2d 346, 35 St.Rep. 1089 and the scope of inquiry there employed by the District Court. See also, State v. Huttinger (1979), Mont., 595 P.2d 363, 36 St.Rep. 945, 951-953. Having concluded the petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence in his petition for post-conviction......
  • 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