State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 14 October 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-728.,98-728.
• Citation: 993 P.2d 1,1999 MT 240,296 Mont. 258
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Melvin Warren WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

993 P.2d 1

1999 MT 240

296 Mont. 258

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Melvin Warren WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 98-728.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs June 10, 1999.

Decided October 14, 1999.

Robert B. Allison, Attorney at Law; Kalispell, Montana, for Appellant.

Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Tammy K. Plubell, Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana; Thomas J. Esch, Flathead County Attorney; Ed Corrigan, Deputy County Attorney; Kalispell, Montana, for Respondent.

Justice JIM REGNIER delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Melvin Warren Williams appeals from an order of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, dated September 22, 1998, revoking his suspended sentence. We affirm.

¶ 2 Williams appeal raises the following issue:

¶ 3 Whether the District Court abused its discretion by revoking a suspended sentence that was conditioned on the completion of a prerelease center program and a sexual offender treatment program because the Defendant was unable to gain admission to those programs?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On March 25, 1998, Williams entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to that agreement, Williams agreed to enter a plea of guilty to sexual intercourse without consent and to move to dismiss his appeal of a youth court transfer order which transferred jurisdiction of his case to district court. In exchange, the State agreed to recommend a 5-year suspended sentence to the Department of Corrections, followed by a 15-year suspended sentence to the Montana State Prison subject to Williams' completion of an approved sexual offender treatment program, abstinence from alcohol and illegal drugs, and compliance with all the standard rules of probation.

¶ 5 On April 9, 1998, Williams pled guilty to the charge of sexual intercourse without consent in violation of § 45-5-503, MCA (1997). On May 20, 1998, DeAnn Carmer, an Adult Probation and Parole Officer for the Department of Corrections, completed her Presentence Investigation of Williams. The Presentence Investigation included a Sex Offender Amenability Evaluation, performed by the Northwest Family Recovery Program, which concluded that Williams was "a moderate to high risk to reoffend." On the basis of her investigation, Ms. Carmer recommended that Williams be placed in the Billings Prerelease Center and initiated the screening process.

¶ 6 The court entered its Judgment and Sentence on June 9, 1998. The District Court committed Williams to the Department of Corrections for 5 years and sentenced Williams to 15 years at the Montana State Prison, both terms suspended. The court also imposed, in relevant part, the following conditions:

As conditions of probation, the Defendant must comply with the following:

2) He must complete the Billings or Great Falls Pre-Release Center. He is to remain in the custody of the Flathead County Detention Center until his placement at a pre-release center can be arranged.

....

5) He must undergo a sexual offender treatment evaluation, complete a sexual offender treatment program deemed appropriate by his probation officer, and follow all resulting recommendations to the satisfaction of his probation officer and treatment provider.

¶ 7 Williams remained in custody pending the outcome of the prerelease centers admissions evaluations because he had no appropriate place to stay. However, the Billings and Great Falls Prerelease Centers declined to accept Williams. On June 19, 1998, the State filed a petition to revoke Williams' suspended sentence because he was unable to meet the conditions of suspension. On July 9, 1998, the District Court held an initial hearing on the State's petition to revoke and concluded that it needed to hear from Ms. Carmer, Williams' probation officer, concerning why both prerelease programs rejected Williams. A subsequent hearing was set for July 16, 1998. At that hearing, Williams requested postponing a final determination on the State's petition in order to allow him to be evaluated by a psychiatrist to determine whether there were medications that could be prescribed for Williams which would enable him to qualify for one of the prerelease programs.

¶ 8 Dr. Victor Houser completed a psychiatric evaluation of Williams on September 13, 1998. Dr. Houser concluded that, "Untreated and released (now or ten years from now) he would almost certainly reoffend, probably another young child." Further, he expressed his hope that the court send Williams to a treatment facility where he could receive "the appropriate medical and psychiatric care along with the prescribed sex offender treatment." ¶ 9 On September 17, 1998, the District Court conducted a final hearing on the State's petition for revocation. At this hearing, Williams denied that he had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence. Ms. Carmer, Williams' probation officer, testified that she had exhausted all possible combinations and that there were no programs in which Williams could be placed for supervision and treatment. She further testified that the prerelease centers had refused to accept Williams because of the lack of social skills, immaturity, and acting out behavior he displayed while residing at a youth home during the completion of his Sex Offender Amenability Evaluation.

¶ 10 On September 23, 1998, the District Court entered its Order of Revocation. The court found that Williams had been rejected by the Billings and Great Falls Prerelease Centers, as well as the Northwest Family Recovery Program. The court also found that Williams was not a suitable candidate for probation or the Intensive Supervised Probation Program because Williams was unemployed, did not have a place to live, lacked the social skills necessary to live independently, and had been assessed as a moderate to high risk to reoffend. Accordingly, the court found Williams to be in violation of the conditions of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence. The court sentenced Williams to a term of 5 years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, with credit for time served, and, upon his discharge from the department, to a term of 15 years at the Montana State Prison, with 12 years suspended. The court declared that Williams would be ineligible for parole until he satisfactorily completed Phase I of the prison's sex offender treatment program. Williams appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 11 The standard for revoking a suspended sentence requires that the District Court be reasonably satisfied that the conduct of the probationer has not been what he agreed it would be if he were given liberty. State v. Lindeman (1997), 285 Mont. 292, 302, 948 P.2d 221, 228 (citing State v. Butler (1995), 272 Mont. 286, 289, 900 P.2d 908, 910). We review a district court's decision to revoke a suspended sentence to determine whether the court abused its discretion and whether the court's decision was supported by a preponderance of the evidence in favor of the state. State v. Nelson, 1998 MT 227, ¶ 16, 291 Mont. 15, ¶ 16, 966 P.2d 133, ¶ 16 (citing Lindeman, 285 Mont. at 302, 948 P.2d at 228).

DISCUSSION

¶ 12 Whether the District Court abused its discretion by revoking a suspended sentence that was conditioned on the completion of a prerelease center program and a sexual offender treatment program because the defendant was unable to gain admission to those programs?

¶ 13 The State filed a Petition for Revocation of Suspended Sentence on June 19, 1998. In this Petition, the State alleged that:

The Defendant's probation officer, DeAnn Carmer, now reports that the Billings and Great Falls Pre-Release Centers have refused to accept the Defendant for placement at their facilities. She further reports that he is not suitable for Intensive Supervised Probation given his lack of social skills, unemployment, lack of appropriate residence, and the Northwest Family Recovery Program's conclusion that he is not amenable for out-patient sex offender treatment.

The State requested that the court schedule a hearing to determine whether Williams' suspended sentence should be revoked. The District Court held a hearing on September 17, 1998, at the conclusion of which, it granted the State's petition. The court found Williams to be in violation of the conditions of his probation and revoked his suspended sentence.

¶ 14 Williams argues that the District Court's revocation of his suspended sentence was erroneous because the State's petition did not allege a violation of the conditions of his suspended sentence. Rather, Williams contends that the State only alleged that the Department of Corrections declined to accept him at one of its prerelease centers. He argues that, as a result of the Department's rejection, the condition requiring him to complete a prerelease center program became impossible due to no wrongdoing on his part. Following our decision in Lopez v. Crist (1978), 176 Mont. 352, 578 P.2d 312, Williams argues that the Department of Corrections should be required "to find appropriate and comparable treatment that does not entail incarceration at the Montana State Prison."

¶ 15 Section 46-18-203, MCA (1997), governs a district court's revocation of a suspended or deferred sentence. It states, in relevant part, that:

(7) If the court finds that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of a suspended or deferred sentence, the court may:

....

(c) revoke the suspension of sentence and require the defendant to serve either the sentence imposed or any lesser sentence;....

¶ 16 Clearly, § 46-18-203, MCA (1997), required the District Court find Williams violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence before revoking the suspension of his sentence. Williams does not contend that completion of a prerelease program was not one of the conditions of his sentence nor does he contend that he completed a prerelease program. Rather, Williams contends that he did not violate this condition...