2007 MT 40
STATE OF MONTANA, v.GARY GENE FRAZIER, JR.,
Did the District Court err in denying Frazier’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea?
The Justice Court’s interrogation was inadequate to determine whether there was
any factual basis for Frazier’s guilty plea. Since any doubts as to whether a plea was voluntary should be resolved in favor of the defendant, we hold that the District Court erred by not allowing Frazier to withdraw his guilty plea. Therefore, we reverse and remand this matter to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
Showing posts with label due process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label due process. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Illegal Sentence, restitution and recoupment cannot stand
207 Mont. 483, 676 P.2d 168
Supreme Court of Montana.
STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Stephen E. FARRELL, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 82-391.
Submitted Sept. 29, 1983.
Decided Jan. 17, 1984.
Defendant was convicted in the District Court of the First Judicial District, in and for the County of Lewis and Clark, Gordon R. Bennett, J., of theft of public assistance funds and sentenced to ten years in prison, service of that term being suspended on condition that he make restitution of funds illegally obtained and penalty thereon, that he reimburse court for expenses incurred by his attorney and that he undergo treatment for his alcohol problem, and defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Gulbrandson, J., held that: (1) there was substantial credible evidence of false statements made by defendant to obtain welfare assistance; (2) jury was properly instructed on elements of theft; (3) instruction on lesser included offense of misdemeanor theft was properly refused; (4) judgment suspending sentence on condition of restitution and recoupment could not stand; and (5) defendant's due process rights may have been violated by suspended ten-year sentence.
Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.
Due process requires only that
indigency or poverty not be used as the touchstone for
imposing the maximum allowable punishment.
Supreme Court of Montana.
STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Stephen E. FARRELL, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 82-391.
Submitted Sept. 29, 1983.
Decided Jan. 17, 1984.
Defendant was convicted in the District Court of the First Judicial District, in and for the County of Lewis and Clark, Gordon R. Bennett, J., of theft of public assistance funds and sentenced to ten years in prison, service of that term being suspended on condition that he make restitution of funds illegally obtained and penalty thereon, that he reimburse court for expenses incurred by his attorney and that he undergo treatment for his alcohol problem, and defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Gulbrandson, J., held that: (1) there was substantial credible evidence of false statements made by defendant to obtain welfare assistance; (2) jury was properly instructed on elements of theft; (3) instruction on lesser included offense of misdemeanor theft was properly refused; (4) judgment suspending sentence on condition of restitution and recoupment could not stand; and (5) defendant's due process rights may have been violated by suspended ten-year sentence.
Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.
Due process requires only that
indigency or poverty not be used as the touchstone for
imposing the maximum allowable punishment.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
ex post facto winner
2007 MT 257
STATE OF MONTANA,v.
PAUL JAY SOUTHWICK,
Does the doctrine of res judicata bar this Court’s consideration of the merits of Southwick’s claim that the District Court imposed an illegal sentence?
2. Does Southwick’s failure to object to his sentences at either of his original sentencing hearings, or at the time the District Court revoked his suspended commitments, preclude review of his sentences?
3. Do the sentences imposed exceed the District Court’s statutory authority?
Because § 46-18-201(3)(d)(i), MCA (1999), is more burdensome that the 1997 version of the statute in effect at the time of the offenses, its application to Southwick violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws. Suiste, 261 Mont. at 253, 862 P.2d at 401.
We conclude, therefore, that Southwick’s sentence is facially illegal.
STATE OF MONTANA,v.
PAUL JAY SOUTHWICK,
Does the doctrine of res judicata bar this Court’s consideration of the merits of Southwick’s claim that the District Court imposed an illegal sentence?
2. Does Southwick’s failure to object to his sentences at either of his original sentencing hearings, or at the time the District Court revoked his suspended commitments, preclude review of his sentences?
3. Do the sentences imposed exceed the District Court’s statutory authority?
Because § 46-18-201(3)(d)(i), MCA (1999), is more burdensome that the 1997 version of the statute in effect at the time of the offenses, its application to Southwick violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws. Suiste, 261 Mont. at 253, 862 P.2d at 401.
We conclude, therefore, that Southwick’s sentence is facially illegal.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Shackles in the Courtroom violates Due Process
2008 MT 143
STATE OF MONTANA, v.
JOHN MICHAEL MERRILL,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Did the District Court abuse its discretion in violation of Merrill’s right to due process of law by granting a request from a law enforcement officer to restrain Merrill with leg shackles during his jury trial?
We hold that the District Court abused its discretion in violation of Merrill’s right to due process of law by granting a request from a law enforcement officer to restrain Merrill with leg shackles during his jury trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
STATE OF MONTANA, v.
JOHN MICHAEL MERRILL,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Did the District Court abuse its discretion in violation of Merrill’s right to due process of law by granting a request from a law enforcement officer to restrain Merrill with leg shackles during his jury trial?
We hold that the District Court abused its discretion in violation of Merrill’s right to due process of law by granting a request from a law enforcement officer to restrain Merrill with leg shackles during his jury trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
.jpg)
- MarkAnthonyGiven
- Given was raised on the streets and in foster homes surrounded by twelve girls. By age 11, authorities already warned his foster mother: “He’s too smart for his britches — keep an eye on him.” That early spark of genius — later estimated in the 145–155+ IQ range (top 0.1% to 0.01% of humanity) — combined with an elite, poetic vocabulary that flows like open chords, propelled him into a life few could survive, let alone immortalize. From the age of 16, Given became a one-man crime wave: robbing 75 banks with nothing but a Bic Pen and a smile, inventing the Mercury Bandit invisibility trick with a baby thermometer, dropping through pharmacy roofs with a Superman pillowcase, and running from New Orleans detectives through the French Quarter while dressed as a 70-year-old woman. He served 12 years on a 10-year federal sentence, reading 120 volumes of Supreme Court decisions in the hole and ruling the law library like a throne. He met the devil twice on a dope-sick bed and refused to curse God — only to have angels physically grab his arm and pull him back. His 56+ stories pour out raw, unoutlined, and alive — no MFA polish, no ghostwriter, no filter. The prose is Hemingway-tight yet