No. 54-356

I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA

O R F F

1985 STATE O MONTANA,

F

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

-vs- CLIFFORD GRANT,

Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL F O :

R M D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,

I n and f o r t h e County o f Chouteau,

The Honorable J o e l G. Roth, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O RECORD:

F

For A p p e l l a n t :

C l i f f o r d G r a n t , p r o s e t Havre, Montana

For Respondent:

Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana

A l l i n Cheetham, Choteau County A t t o r n e y , F o r t Benton,

Montana

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : J u n e 1 9 , 1985

Decided: August 2 2 , 1985

Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank R. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

Following a non-jury t r i a l i n t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l Dis- t r i c t C o u r t , County o f C h o t e a u , d e f e n d a n t C l i f f o r d G r a n t was c o n v i c t e d o f t h e o f f e n s e o f o p e r a t i n g a motor v e h i c l e w h i l e designated an habitual traffic offender, in violation of 5 61-11-213, MCA. G r a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o one y e a r in the Choteau County Jail, with six months suspended and given credit for 16 d a y s already spent in the jail. Defendant appeals.

Choteau County Deputy Sheriff David Baker observed a s m a l l r e d c a r l e a v e t h e high.way, t u r n o n t o a r o a d and p r o c e e d u n d e r n e a t h a r a i l r o a d b r i d g e o u t s i d e o f Loma, Montana, on t h e evening of January 25, 1984. S i n c e it seemed u n u s u a l for a c a r t o b e i n t h a t l n c t a i o n , Deputy B a k e r a l s o p u l l e d o f f t h e r o a d t o o b s e r v e t h e v e h i c l e and i t s o c c u p a n t s . Once t h e dome l i g h t i n t h e c a r came o n , t h e deputy observed t h e occupants with his field glasses, noting both the hair color and c l o t h i n g of each i n d i v i d u a l . When t h e o c c u p a n t s l i t a p i p e , Deputy Baker approached the car and asked the passenger, William Buerkle, to roll down his window. The smell of m a r i j u a n a was p r e v a l e n t and a p i p e l a y on t h e c a r s e a t . Both occupants w e r e immediately a r r e s t e d f o r possession of drug p a r a p h e r n a 1i a .

A d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e check r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n the driver's seat, defendant Grant, had been declared an habitual t r a f f i c o f f e n d e r i n August o f 1983. Deputy B a k e r i n f o r m e d G r a n t t h a t h e would b e i s s u e d a n o t i c e t o a p p e a r f o r operating a vehicle while designated an habitua 1 t r a f f i c offender. The two w e r e t h e n e s c o r t e d t o t h e S h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e and "booked. "

An a f f i d a v i t and m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n i n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t w i t h t h e t r a f f i c o f f e n s e was f i l e d i n t h e District Court on February 8, 1984. The information was issued. T h a t same d a y , d e f e n d a n t made h i s i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e in court on that charge. Defendant requested a court-appointed attorney and t h e p r o c e e d i n g was continued. The t r i a l judge a l s o s e t b a i l a t $500, n o t i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t was p r e s e n t l y " s e r v i n g some k i n d o f a sentence o u t of the Justice Court here in Fort Benton," but that once that s e n t e n c e was s e r v e d , d e f e n d a n t c o u l d p o s t h i s b a i l .

Defendant's attorney entered a plea of not guilty for him at his a r r a i g n m e n t on March 14, 1984, and a non-jury t r i a l was h e l d A p r i l 11, 1984. A t t r i a l , Deputy Baker t e s t i - f i e d t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l s h e had o b s e r v e d t h r o u g h h i s f i e l d g l a s s e s o c c u p i e d t h e same s e a t s when h e a r r i v e d a t t h e c a r ; t h a t h e had n o t n o t i c e d any s w i t c h i n g o f p l a c e s ; and t h a t h e had n o t o b s e r v e d t h e o p e n i n g of any c a r d o o r .

D e f e n d a n t 1s father, Charles Grant, testified that he r e q u e s t e d h i s son and W i l l i a m B u e r k l e t o d r i v e t h e c a r from Havre t o G r e a t F a l l s on J a n u a r y 25, 1 9 8 4 , and t o a t t e m p t t o t r a d e t h e c a r f o r another. H e requested Buerkle t o d r i v e t h e a u t o m o b i l e a s h i s s o n no l o n g e r had a v a l i d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e .

William Buerkle testified that he drove the car from Havre t o G r e a t F a l l s and from G r e a t F a l l s t o t h e t u r n o f f n e a r Loma. The c a r t h e n became s t u c k i n t h e mud and d e f e n d a n t took over t h e d r i v e r ' s s e a t i n an e f f o r t t o f r e e t h e c a r . Upon cross-examination of Buerkle, t h e S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d an a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by B u e r k l e on F e b r u a r y 8 , 1984, s t a t i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t had d r i v e n t h e a u t o m o b i l e from G r e a t F a l l s t o Loma.

The d e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y was g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t o f William Buerkle.

The t r i a l judge found t h F e b r u a r y 8 , 1984, s t a t e m e n t o f

~ William Buerkle t o b e more c r e d i b l e t h a n h i s testimony a t trial. Relying on Buerkle's affidavit and Deputy B a k e r ' s testimony, t h e judge found t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f o p e r a t i n g a motor vehicle while being adjudged an habitual traffic of fender.

D e f e n d a n t r a i s e s e l e v e n i s s u e s i n a p r o se a p p e a l of h i s conviction. The State condenses those issues into three major categories. With some amplification, we find the S t a t e ' s i s s u e s t o be adequate.

1. Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y a c t e d w i t h i n t h e r a n g e o f competence demanded o f a t t o r n e y s i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s ?

2. Whether the District Court properly admitted the s t a t e m e n t s i g n e d by B u e r k l e ?

3. Whether defendant's due process rights were violated?

I n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel r e q u i r e s s p e c i f i c a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s by c o u n s e l which p r e j u d i c e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e and resu1.t i n t h e d e n i a l o f a f a i r t r i a l . S t a t e v . Boyer (Mont. 1 9 8 5 ) , 695 P.2d 829, 8 3 1 , 4 2 S t . R e p . 247, 250. I n Boyer, we a d o p t e d t h e t e s t s e t f o r t h by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t for d e t e r m i n i n g when ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of counsel has occurred.

" F i r s t , t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t show t h a t c o u n s e l ' s

p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t . T h i s r e q u i r e s showing

t h a t c o u n s e l made e r r o r s s o s e r i o u s t h a t c o u n s e l

was n o t f u n c t i o n i n g a s t h e ' c o u n s e l ' g u a r a n t e e d t h e

d e f e n d a n t by t h e S i x t h Amendment. Second, t h e

d e f e n d a n t must show t h a t t h e d e f i c i e n t p e r f o r m a n c e

prejudiced t h e defense. T h i s r e q u i r e s showing t h a t

counsel's e r r o r s w e r e so serious a s t o deprive the

d e f e n d a n t o f a f a i r t r i a l , a t r i a l whose r e s u l t i s

re7 i a b l e . " S t r i c k l a n d v . Washington (1984) ,

U.S. I - , 104 S . C t . 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d

6 7 4 , 693.

Defendant points us t o no e v i d e n c e i n support of his a1l e g a t i o n that his counsel's performance was deficient. Furthermore, he has failed to prove his counsel's error d e p r i v e d him o f a f a i r t r i a l . T h e r e f o r e , w e f i n d no m e r i t t o defendant's claim of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel.

11.

D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s that t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o i n c l u d e a r e f e r e n c e t o W i l l i a m B u e r k l e ' s F e b r u a r y 8 , 1 9 8 4 , sworn s t a t e - ment in its affidavit and motion for leave to file the information against defendant imposed - post facto law on

ex defendant. Defendant misunderstands - post facto law.

ex

"[Alny statute which punishes as a crime an act

previously committed, which was innocent when done,

which makes more burdensome the punishment for a

crime, after its commission, or which deprives one

charged with crime of any defense available accord-

ing to law at the time when the act was committed,

is prohibited as ex post facto." Beazell v. Ohio

(1925). 269 U.S. 167, 169-170, 46 S.Ct. 68, 68, 70 L.Ed. 216, 217.

Buerkle's prior statement has none of these effects. The law controlling the operation of a motor vehicle while designated an habitual traffic offender was the same when defendant performed the offense as it was when defendant was tried. There is no - post facto problem.

ex

In addition, pursuant to 5 26-1-302(7), MCA, and Rule 613, Mont.R.Evid., the February 8, 1984, statement was admis- sible as a prior inconsistent statement. Buerkel was given the opportunity to explain the statement. Once the opposing statements were admitted, it was within the province of the fact finder, in this case the trial judge, to determine which statement was more credible. F e find no error in the trial

l court's reliance on the prior inconsistent statement.

Defendant's due process rights have not been violated.

Defendant contends that failure to file until February 8, 1984, the information charging him with the traffic of- fense prejudiced him and violated S S 46-7-1.01 through -103, MCA . Defendant raises this issue for the first time on appeal. Therefore, we will not consider it.

The judge did not err in ordering a presentence investi- gation. Pursuant to 5 46-18-111, MCA, the judge, in his discretion, may order a presentence investigation when the potential penalty is less than one year in prison. The judge explained his reasons for the investigation, stating:

"Now, b e c a u s e t h e r e i s a s u b s t a n t i a l p e n a l t y i n -

volved h e r e i n t h i s c a s e , I d o n ' t want t o s e n t e n c e

you a t t h i s t i m e . I d o want t o o b t a i n a r e c o r d o f

y o u r t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s , and I d o want t o o r d e r a

presentence r e p o r t h e r e t o be prepared by t h e

p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e b e f o r e I s e n t e n c e you on t h i s

charge . . . ." T r . p . 61.

Defendant h a s f a i l e d t o show how s p e n d i n g o n e week a t Hi1.1 Top R e c o v e r y C e n t e r , from May 3 1 , 1984 u n t i l June 6, 1984, p r e j u d i c e d h i s a p p e a l . H i s i n i t i a l b r i e f was n o t f i l e d u n t i l F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1985.

Punishment o f d e f e n d a n t a t t h i s t i m e i s n o t c o n t r a r y t o t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . D e f e n d a n t c r e a t e d t h e d e l a y when he chose t o p o s t b a i l pending t h i s appeal.

The c o n v i c t i o n and sentence of defendant i s affirmed. W e concur: /