Montana Supreme Court news for May 20, 2015
Butte man appeals drug conviction to high court
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
HELENA – A Butte man serving a 20-year sentence, with 10 years suspended, in the Montana State Penitentiary for a Lake County drug conviction has appealed the Montana Supreme Court, with his attorney saying a judge should have suppressed evidence in the case and that he was not given sufficient legal counsel.
Robert Lee Crawford, 47, was sent to prison in January 2014 on felony possession of dangerous drug charges, after a trial where he raised many concerns, according to court documents filed with the high court on May 6.
Crawford’s public defender claims Crawford was detained in March 2012 after an informant suffering from drug withdrawals and attempting to be released from jail provided Lake County Sheriff’s Deputies with information that Crawford was an armed robbery suspect who was operating a meth lab. At trial officers said they researched extensively online, but could not verify the information provided by the informant, other than finding an 11-year-old conviction.
Crawford’s parole officer was contacted about the incident and she allegedly told Northwestern Drug Taskforce agents that if they should see Crawford again to arrest him and that she would issue a warrant. The attorney claims a warrant was never issued, though Crawford was detained in Lake County after trying to recover stolen property. Attorneys claim there is not metadata on the tape that was presented in trial, indicating it may have been edited to leave out important details that Crawford recounts. Crawford claims law enforcement argued about whether not he could be held because there was not a parole hold or warrant on his record. Crawford was arrested. He claimed at trial that officers put items in his pockets. Vials were found in Crawford’s pants that tested positive for meth. A passenger who was traveling with Crawford testified that the vial with meth residue belonged to the passenger.
“In order to arrest and search Crawford, the officers contacted Probation and Parole on the scene in an attempt to get authorization to arrest Crawford for traveling as a parolee without a permit,” Crawford’s attorney wrote. “Their only purpose in obtaining a warrant from Probation and Parole, however, was as a false pretense (or ‘stalking horse’) to further their criminal investigation. Crawford’s arrest on this basis was unlawful and the district court wrongfully denied his motion to suppress on these grounds.”
Crawford’s attorney also claims the public defender assigned to the case was ineffective and did not file the paperwork necessary for a proper defense. In the appeal it is noted that Crawford has never seen the information sheet charging him, and that he verbally expressed his lack of faith in counsel at trial.
“In effect, Crawford was told that, due to the district court’s failure to consider his issues with counsel up to that point, Crawford would suffer the consequences,” the appeal claims.
