State v. Lafield

• Decision Date: 19 December 2017
• Docket Number: DA 15-0771
• Citation: 407 P.3d 682,2017 MT 312,390 Mont. 1
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jeffory A. LAFIELD, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

390 Mont. 1

407 P.3d 682

2017 MT 312

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Jeffory A. LAFIELD, Defendant and Appellant.

DA 15-0771

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: September 27, 2017

Decided: December 19, 2017

For Appellant: Robin Meguire, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, Montana

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Kirsten H. Pabst, Missoula County Attorney, Karla Painter, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana

Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 This appeal results from a November 4, 2015 judgment, wherein Jeffory Alan LaField (LaField) pled guilty to the criminal offense of felony driving under the influence of alcohol, fourth or subsequent offense, and three misdemeanors: obstructing a peace officer, driving a motor vehicle without a license, and failure to carry proof of insurance. LaField alleges violation of his due process rights, errors in sentencing, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm and remand for entry of an amended judgment.

¶ 2 We restate the issues on appeal as follows:

Issue One: Whether the District Court deprived LaField of his right to due process during sentencing.

Issue Two: Whether the District Court's imposition of the suspended sentence condition requiring LaField to obtain permission before engaging in business, purchasing real property, purchasing an automobile, or incurring a debt, should be stricken because of a lack of factual nexus.

Issue Three: Whether LaField was deprived of effective assistance of counsel during sentencing.

Issue Four: Whether the sentencing conditions in the written judgment should be amended to conform to oral pronouncement of the conditions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On November 15, 2014, Missoula County Sheriff Deputy Ross Jessop (Deputy Jessop) was driving southbound on Montana Highway 93. He observed a red 1997 Suzuki automobile swerve over the fog line. Deputy Jessop observed the vehicle following traffic too closely, nearly collide with another vehicle, and nearly collide with Deputy Jessop's marked patrol car. Deputy Jessop initiated a traffic stop, and the driver pulled off the highway into an adjacent parking lot. The driver told Deputy Jessop his name was Robert Richard Fowler, but was unsure of his birthdate. Deputy Jessop identified the driver as LaField. LaField was unable to produce a valid driver's license or proof of insurance.

¶ 4 Deputy Jessop observed that LaField exhibited signs of intoxication, including smelling of alcohol, droopy blood-shot eyes, extremely slurred speech, and coordination problems. LaField admitted to having consumed alcohol. Deputy Jessop initiated a field sobriety test. LaField was unable or unwilling to comply with the protocol. Deputy Jessop arrested La Field for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). A check of LaField's driving history showed he was currently on probation for a felony DUI conviction in Ravalli County, and LaField's driving privileges were suspended. LaField resisted Deputy Jessop's efforts to place him under arrest. As Deputy Jessop placed him in the back of his patrol car, LaField kicked Deputy Jessop.

¶ 5 On December 1, 2014, LaField was charged with Felony Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs, a Fourth or Subsequent Offense, Assault on a Peace Officer, Obstructing a Peace Officer, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Privilege to do so is Suspended or Revoked, and Failure to Carry Proof of Insurance in Vehicle. The State filed a notice of intent to designate and sentence LaField as a persistent felony offender (PFO).

¶ 6 The State provided LaField with a public defender, Louis Villemez. On December 9, 2014, with counsel present, LaField entered a not guilty plea to each charge. Villemez informed the court he was representing LaField on a limited basis, as LaField planned to secure different representation. On January 20, 2015, LaField appeared for an omnibus hearing without counsel, but informed the court Randi Hood was his public defender. The court continued the hearing. On January 27, LaField appeared at the omnibus hearing with Dave Stenerson, Regional Deputy of the Office of Public Defender (OPD). On February 2, the court granted Hood's motion to withdraw as counsel and ordered Stenerson to appear to discuss the status of LaField's public defender representation. On February 20, LaField was assigned Reed Mandelko as his public defender. On March 9, Mandelko filed a motion to suppress, alleging Deputy Jessop lacked particularized suspicion to stop LaField. However, a possible conflict arose that required Mandelko to withdraw as LaField's counsel.

On April 7, Stenerson appeared in District Court and Daniel Miller was substituted as LaField's new public defender. On May 5, Miller represented LaField at the omnibus hearing. Before an evidentiary hearing was held, Miller filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which the court granted. Thereafter, the OPD expressed its opposition to representing LaField. On June 1, the court ordered briefing on whether LaField forfeited his right to court-appointed counsel and requested a list of potential contract attorneys the court could appoint to represent LaField. The District Court appointed Craig Shannon to represent LaField. OPD withdrew its opposition to assigning counsel and the court vacated the briefing schedule.

¶ 7 Regarding the motion to suppress, the court granted counsel's motion for discovery and subpoena duces tecum. After a full briefing by both parties and a July 31, 2015 evidentiary hearing, the court denied LaField's motion to suppress. At the August 25 pretrial conference, LaField's counsel presented the court with LaField's Guilty Plea and Waiver of Rights and explained LaField intended to enter a plea to four of the five charges and the State would dismiss the charge of felony assault on a peace officer. When questioned by the court, LaField confirmed he understood his rights and was entering his plea knowingly and voluntarily. The court accepted the plea and ordered a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report.

¶ 8 After the PSI report was completed, LaField's counsel filed a sentencing memorandum and objection to both the PSI writer's characterization of his criminal history and recommended thirty-year prison sentence. Counsel argued the recommended sentence was excessive based on the mitigating factors in this case and when compared to other felony DUI sentences that did not result in any injury.

¶ 9 At the October 20, 2015 sentencing hearing, LaField and his counsel were given the opportunity to explain the mitigating factors regarding why LaField drove while intoxicated. The court accepted LaField's description of the mitigating factors. LaField disagreed with the PSI report summary of his criminal history. The District Court allowed LaField to explain his criminal history and the court accepted his summary over the PSI report. LaField then requested several of the recommended probation conditions be either amended or stricken. Of the thirty-two sentencing conditions, the District Court struck six conditions and amended two others. Relevant to this appeal are two conditions, one requiring LaField to obtain permission from his probation officer to engage in business, purchase property or a vehicle, or take on debt, and the other requiring LaField to obtain a mental health evaluation. LaField then requested the court review and submitted into evidence seven photographs which allegedly depicted LaField's injuries sustained during the arrest. The District Court denied his request to enter them into evidence but did allow them to be placed in the file for consideration.

¶ 10 LaField then requested five minutes to read a letter to the court. The court cautioned LaField to address only issues relevant to his current sentencing. When given the opportunity to address the court, LaField raised issues related to his previous DUI conviction. The court interrupted LaField and admitted the letter into the record, denying LaField any further time to address the court. The court sentenced LaField to a net sentence of twenty years to run consecutively to his other felony DUI sentence. LaField appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 11 This Court reviews whether a district court violated a defendant's constitutional rights at sentencing de novo. State v. Sherman, 2017 MT 39, ¶ 9, 386 Mont. 363, 390 P.3d 158. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel present mixed issues of law and fact which we review de novo. State v. Clary, 2012 MT 26, ¶ 12, 364 Mont. 53, 270 P.3d 88. We review criminal sentences that include at least one year of actual incarceration for legality only. The term "legality" in this context signifies that we will not review a sentence for mere inequity or disparity. Rather, our review is confined to determining whether the sentencing court had statutory authority to impose the sentence, whether the sentence falls within the parameters set by the applicable sentencing statutes, and whether the court adhered to the affirmative mandates of the applicable sentencing statutes. We have characterized this "legality" standard more generally as reviewing for correctness. The question is one of law and the determination is whether the district court interpreted the law correctly. This determination is a question of law and, as such, our review is de novo. State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 174, 338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815.

DISCUSSION

¶ 12 Issue One: Whether the District Court deprived LaField of his right to due process during sentencing.

¶ 13 LaField claims he was deprived of his right to due process to participate fully in the sentencing hearing because the District Court denied him the opportunity to finish reading his letter to the court and refused to admit and consider seven photographs showing physical injury resulting from his arrest. Further, he argues the District Court deprived him...