State v. Prindle
| Decision Date | 02 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 11–0291.,DA 11–0291. |
| Citation | 370 Mont. 478,304 P.3d 712 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Daniel Alvin PRINDLE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
For Appellant: Penelope S. Strong, Attorney at Law; Billings, Montana.
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Lynn Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana, Scott Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney, Christopher Morris, Deputy County Attorney; Billings, Montana.
[370 Mont. 479]¶ 1 Daniel Alvin Prindle (Prindle) appeals from the order of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm, and address the issue:
¶ 2 Did the District Court err in denying Prindle's motion to withdraw his plea as involuntarily entered?
¶ 3 On the evening of May 1, 2008, Prindle, the driver of a Honda SUV carrying Katie Grant (Grant) and Brianna Coe (Coe) as passengers, inexplicably pulled out in front James Archer (Archer), the driver and sole occupant of a Buick sedan, on a road just outside Billings city limits. Archer's vehicle had the right of way. The front of Archer's sedan struck the side of Prindle's SUV, causing a “T–Bone” style collision. At 7:45 p.m., Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Brian Sampson (Trooper Sampson) was dispatched to the accident. All four individuals involved in the accident were injured and were receiving medical treatment when Trooper Sampson arrived. Archer's injuries required a number of surgeries, and he suffered loss of physical and mental abilities. Grant suffered several injuries including facial scarring, and Coe sustained a traumatic head injury.
¶ 4 Trooper Sampson's investigation pointed to marijuana use by Prindle as a contributing cause to the collision. Trooper Sampson was unable to speak to Archer and Coe at the scene because they were being transported for surgery, but was able to talk to Grant. Grant had previously told medical responders that she and Prindle had ingested marijuana a couple hours before the accident. Grant confirmed this statement to Trooper Sampson and added the detail that she and Prindle had smoked “a couple bowls” of marijuana. Grant was then taken to the hospital where Trooper Sampson resumed his questioning. Grant said she and Prindle smoked marijuana “right after [she] got out of school.” Grant's parents were present, and Grant's father received Trooper Sampson's permission to retrieve Grant's cell phone and purse from Prindle's car, which had been towed from the scene. When looking for these items, Grant's father discovered a marijuana pipe and scale on the floorboards of Prindle's SUV. The pipe and scale were taken as evidence.
¶ 5 The State charged Prindle with three counts of negligent vehicular assault, one count of criminal endangerment, and one count of driving while suspended. Matthew Claus (Claus) was appointed as Prindle's public defender.
¶ 6 Claus investigated the State's case against Prindle. Through discovery, he received police reports and diagrams, medical records and other documents. He made copies of these documents for Prindle, and mailed him additional discovery as it was received from the State. Claus met with Prindle on numerous occasions in his office to discuss the case and communicated with Prindle by telephone. During these conversations, Prindle repeatedly voiced interest in pleading guilty if he could receive a suspended or deferred sentence rather than taking the case to trial whereafter, if convicted, he could face prison time. Prindle told Claus his sole memory of the evening of the accident was that he was the driver, and said he only knew what had happened from talking to Grant and his mother.
¶ 7 Claus interviewed Grant and Prindle's mother. Grant explained that she had met up with Prindle after school at a grocery store. From there, they picked up Prindle's mother from work and dropped her off at home. Then they picked up marijuana, and drove around smoking a “blunt” for roughly a half hour before heading to Coe's house, where she and Coe “split a beer.” The accident occurred shortly after they left Coe's house. Grant said that she did not think Prindle was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident. Prindle's mother said she did not think Prindle appeared under the influence of marijuana when he picked her up at approximately 5:00 p.m. However, unlike Grant's account, Prindle's mother said Prindle was alone when he picked her up.
¶ 8 Claus discussed this information with Prindle. Prindle asked Claus to find out how long the impairing effects of marijuana lasted. Claus found an article published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA Article) explaining that marijuana users' motor skills, behavior, perception and cognition were typically impaired for three to five hours after ingesting the drug.
¶ 9 Claus and Prindle met again to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the State's case and assess a plea offer from the State. Claus explained the State's case was not the strongest, but there was still sufficient evidence for a jury to find him guilty based on Grant's testimony of his marijuana use in the hours preceding the accident. The State's plea offer was for a suspended sentence recommendation, so Prindle asked Claus to see if the State would agree to recommend a deferred sentence. Claus made the counter offer to the State, and the State agreed. Prindle would plead guilty to one count of negligent vehicular assault and driving while suspended; in return, the State would dismiss the other charges and recommend a six-year deferred sentence on the remaining negligent vehicular assault charge.
¶ 10 During the summer of 2010, Prindle moved to Oregon to pursue a career in snowboarding. On August 24, 2010, Prindle signed the plea agreement and appeared for a change-of-plea hearing. He hand-wrote on the plea agreement that he was pleading guilty because: “On May 1st, 2008, I drove my vehicle o[n] marijuana and negligently caused serious bodily injury to James Archer, Brianna Coe, and Kati[e] Grant in Yellowstone County.” Prindle also acknowledged in the agreement that the court was not obligated to accept the agreement and could instead sentence him to different terms. At the change-of-plea hearing, the judge asked if Prindle understood that the court did not have to accept the plea agreement's recommended sentence and that Prindle could receive the maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Prindle said he understood, and stated he was satisfied with Claus's work. Prindle then pled guilty, and his sentencing hearing was set for a later date. In the meantime, Prindle returned to Oregon.
¶ 11 In January 2011, Prindle returned to Montana for his sentencing hearing. The District Court sentenced Prindle in accordance with the plea agreement. Prindle expected to immediately return to Oregon, but when he reported to his probation officer, he was informed that protocol required Prindle to complete 90 days on supervision “without issues” before he was permitted to leave Montana. Prindle filed a notice of appeal on May 19, 2011, but then moved the District Court for leave to withdraw his plea. Prindle filed an unopposed motion with this Court to remand the matter to the District Court to adjudicate his motion to withdraw. This Court granted the motion.
¶ 12 The District Court held a hearing on Prindle's motion and took testimony from several witnesses. Prindle's mother testified but provided no new relevant information. Prindle testified that he would have gone to trial if he had known just how weak the State's case was or had Claus not incorrectly assured him there was “no reason” why he would not be able to immediately return to Oregon. Prindle further alleged that during the August 24, 2010 change-of-plea hearing, he had informed the judge that Claus had told him he would be able to return to Oregon.
¶ 13 Prindle also called Dr. Jennifer Souders (Dr. Souders), an expert on impairment due to marijuana use, to opine that Claus should have hired an expert to determine whether Prindle was still under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident. While Dr. Souders criticized the NHTSA Article used by Claus for academic shortcomings,1 she agreed with its conclusion that, for driving purposes, impairment from marijuana generally lasts around three hours.
¶ 14 Claus testified about his representation of Prindle. Claus stated that the critical issue in the case was the timing of Prindle's marijuana use. He said he recognized the conflict between Grant's statement that she and Prindle had smoked marijuana after taking Prindle's mother home together and Prindle's mother's statement that Prindle was alone when he took her home. He also recognized that Grant's recollection of when she and Prindle smoked had changed from “right after school” to after taking Prindle's mother home. Claus believed, however, that a jury would most likely resolve this conflict by concluding that Grant had smoked marijuana with Prindle after Prindle left his mother's house. This placed Prindle within the three-hour window of impairment discussed in the NHTSA Article. Claus explained that he had not conducted further interviews primarily because Prindle did not want to go to trial and a deferred sentence was therefore his best option.
¶ 15 The District Court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and denied Prindle's motion to withdraw his plea on May 30, 2012. The court concluded that Prindle's plea was entered voluntarily because Claus never promised that Prindle would be allowed to reside in Oregon and Claus had conducted adequate research to advise his client concerning marijuana impairment. Prindle appeals.
¶ 16 The ultimate question of whether a plea is voluntarily made is a mixed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Terronez
...ultimate question of whether a plea is voluntarily made is a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Prindle, 2013 MT 173, ¶ 16, 370 Mont. 478, 304 P.3d 712 (citing State v. Brinson, 2009 MT 200, ¶ 3, 351 Mont. 136, 210 P.3d 164 ). Consequently, we review a district court's ruling on a mot......
-
City of Missoula v. Starr
...his constitutional rights to not incriminate himself and to a trial by jury or judge. State v. Prindle , 2013 MT 173, ¶ 17, 370 Mont. 478, 304 P.3d 712 (citing Brady v. U.S. , 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970) ).¶12 This Court has adopted the Brady standard to determine if a plea was voluntarily mad......
-
State v. Hendrickson
...1463, 1468–69, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970), to determine whether a plea was voluntarily made. State v. Prindle, 2013 MT 173, ¶ 17, 370 Mont. 478, 483, 304 P.3d 712. The Brady standard requires that, to make a voluntary plea, a criminal defendant must be “fully aware of the direct consequences, in......