12/27/2016
DA 15-0212
Case Number: DA 15-0212
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 338N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JEFFORY A. LAFIELD,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC 13-55
Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Paul Sullivan, Measure, Sampsel, Sullivan & O’Brien, P.C.,
Kalispell, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Madison L. Mattioli,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
William E. Fulbright, Ravalli County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 30, 2016
Decided: December 27, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 In October 2013, Jeffory LaField entered into a plea agreement in which he pled
no contest to felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fourth or subsequent
offense, and felony assault on a peace officer. The Montana Twenty-First Judicial
District Court, Ravalli County, accepted the plea agreement and entered a Judgment and
Commitment in December 2013. An Amended Judgment and Commitment was entered
on January 24, 2014.
¶3 For LaField’s felony DUI conviction, the District Court committed LaField to the
Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) for a period of thirteen months, for
placement into an appropriate correctional facility, followed by a five-year suspended
commitment to the DOC. The judgment provided that if LaField completed the WATCh
program or other residential alcohol treatment program operated or approved by the
DOC, the court would allow him to serve the remainder of his thirteen-month
commitment on probation. For LaField’s felony assault conviction, the court committed
him to the custody of the DOC for a period of five years, all suspended on conditions,
and set to run concurrently to the felony DUI sentence.
2
¶4 In July 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke LaField’s suspended sentence on
the grounds that LaField violated conditions of his sentence, including failing to comply
with the rules and regulations of the WATCh program in January 2014, and disobeying
the law by assaulting a fellow inmate in June 2014. At the October 6, 2014 scheduling
hearing, the court released LaField on his own recognizance subject to specific conditions
of release. The District Court set a revocation hearing for November 24, 2014.
¶5 On November 19, 2014, the State filed an amended petition to revoke LaField’s
suspended sentence. In the amended petition, the State alleged that, in addition to the
violated conditions set forth in the original Petition, on November 15, 2014, LaField
violated numerous other conditions including driving a vehicle while under the influence
of alcohol and assaulting another peace officer.
¶6 We note that from April 2013, when the State filed its Information, through the
revocation proceeding in March 2015, LaField was represented by six attorneys, most of
whom withdrew. At the revocation hearing, LaField represented himself, with appointed
stand-by counsel. Just before the hearing commenced, LaField became angry and spit on
stand-by counsel. The District Court allowed the hearing to commence with warnings to
LaField. However, shortly into LaField’s cross-examination of the State’s first witness,
LaField became combative and threatened and cursed the judge. The judge had him
removed from the courtroom and put into a room with “sight and sound” technology to
allow him to follow the proceeding. LaField refused to watch or listen.
¶7 The District Court conducted the hearing, instructing stand-by counsel to
cross-examine the State’s multiple witnesses. At the close of the hearing, the District
3
Court revoked both suspended sentences and committed LaField to the DOC for five
years with a strong recommendation for prison placement. The District Court issued its
written Order of Commitment on March 5, 2015. It is from this Order that LaField
appeals.
¶8 We review a district court’s revocation of a suspended sentence for an abuse of
discretion. State v. Baird, 2006 MT 266, ¶ 15,
334 Mont. 185,
145 P.3d 995.
¶9 LaField, through counsel, argues on appeal that he is entitled to a written
statement of the evidence upon which the court relied in revoking his suspended
sentences. He claims that because he was absent from the courtroom during the
proceeding, the District Court’s obligation to provide such a written statement was
critical. He proffers that the court’s failure to do so entitled him to reversal of his
judgment and a remand for further proceedings.
¶10 The State counters that the court’s lack of written findings does not entitle LaField
to a new revocation hearing. Rather, the State is required to prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that LaField violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence
and the record of the case can provide sufficient support for the court’s revocation.
Section 46-18-203(6), MCA; Baird, ¶¶ 17, 30.
¶11 In Baird, this Court reviewed the district court’s revocation of a deferred sentence
imposed on Baird following a felony stalking conviction. Baird was present at the
revocation hearing and testified on his own behalf. He did not deny that he violated the
order of protection on numerous occasions. Baird, ¶¶ 10, 12. The district court
addressed Baird directly when it pronounced judgment, asking if Baird understood why
4
the court was revoking his deferred sentence. Baird answered in the affirmative. Baird,
¶ 13.
¶12 On appeal, Baird argued that he was denied due process because the court had not
set forth, in a written statement, the evidence relied upon for the revocation of his
deferred sentence as required by Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786,
93 S. Ct. 1756,
1761-62 (1973). “[D]ue process requires that upon revocation of a probation the
defendant receive a written statement of the evidence relied upon by the arbiter and the
reason for revoking probation.” Baird, ¶ 24. While acknowledging the rule of Gagnon,
and a subsequent similar ruling in Black v. Romano,
471 U.S. 606,
105 S. Ct. 2254
(1985), we noted that the U.S. Supreme Court, in deference to state court systems,
recognized and sought to preserve flexibility in revocation proceedings, “which does not
require the full panoply of procedural safeguards associated with a criminal trial.” Baird,
¶ 28 (citing Black,
471 U.S. at 613,
105 S. Ct. at 2258). Consequently, we concluded
“that the due process requirements of a written statement by the district court may be
satisfied by a record that provides adequate factfinding and an adequate basis for
appellate review.” Baird, ¶ 30. We continued:
Read as a whole, the oral and written records from the District Court
provide an adequate basis for this Court’s review, as required by Black and
Richardson.[1] This Court has no difficulty identifying and evaluating the
information used by the District Court to revoke Baird’s deferred sentence.
The record is adequate to determine that the District Court’s revocation of
Baird’s probation was based on “permissible grounds supported by the
evidence.” We conclude that the District Court’s written order and hearing
transcript meet the minimal due process requirements required by Gagnon
and its progeny.
1
State v. Richardson, 2000 MT 72,
299 Mont. 102,
997 P.2d 786.
5
Baird, ¶ 32.
¶13 Applying Baird to the case before us, the written transcript reveals that the District
Court heard credible testimony from the security coordinator of the WATCh facility, an
Anaconda detention officer, a probation and parole district supervisor, and a Missoula
County sheriff’s deputy. LaField’s stand-by counsel cross-examined these witnesses on
LaField’s behalf. These witnesses provided evidence and testimony that LaField: (1)
violated the rules and regulations of the WATCh facility, (2) assaulted a fellow inmate,
(3) drove a vehicle, consumed alcohol, and drove while under the influence of alcohol,
(4) assaulted a Missoula County sheriff’s deputy while resisting arrest, (5) gave a false
name to the Missoula County sheriff’s deputy, and (6) was driving without a valid license
or proof of insurance. Each of these claims represented a violation of a specific term or
condition of LaField’s suspended sentences. While the District Court found that the State
had not established that LaField drove a vehicle that was not equipped with an ignition
interlock system as required by his suspended sentence conditions and as alleged by the
State, the court expressly found that the State had proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that LaField had violated the remaining probation conditions as alleged. It is
apparent from the hearing transcript the evidence the District Court relied upon to issue
its order of revocation. While factually distinguishable in that Baird was present in the
courtroom, Baird nonetheless supports our conclusion that the District Court did not
abuse its discretion in revoking LaField’s suspended sentences.
6
¶14 Lastly, LaField’s absence from the proceeding and his failure to watch or listen to
the hearing after his removal for disruptive and abusive behavior does not place a higher
burden on the District Court in administering the proceeding. It is undisputed that the
District Court provided LaField with the opportunity to be present and be heard and
LaField did not avail himself of the opportunity.
¶15 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion
of the Court, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in revoking LaField’s
suspended sentences.
¶16 Affirmed.
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
7
