Montgomery Not Allowed to Drop Pleas

Despite an impassioned argument by his attorney, former Moorpark City Councilman Scott Montgomery failed Friday to persuade a judge to allow him to withdraw guilty pleas to criminal conflict of interest.

“If eloquence alone were the measuring stick which was used, you’d have a powerful argument,” said Ventura County Municipal Court Judge Thomas Hutchins to Montgomery’s attorney, George Eskin.

But Hutchins ruled that Montgomery could not take back the pleas because the former councilman was informed of his rights and not coerced by prosecutors before pleading guilty to felony and misdemeanor conflict of interest.

“In the final analysis, the merits of your argument must depend on the facts in the case,” Hutchins said.

Montgomery’s attorneys said they may appeal the ruling. They said there is a chance that Superior Court Judge Charles Campbell, set to impose a sentence next month, could rule there was no factual basis for the charges and still throw out the pleas.

But prosecutors said such rulings are extremely rare.

The former councilman faces a maximum 3 1/2 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. Sentencing is set for Feb. 9.

In October, Montgomery stood before Hutchins and admitted accepting a $3,500 loan from a trash company executive, then voting on contracts the company had with Moorpark.

But he recanted a month later, alleging that prosecutors bullied him into admitting to a crime he did not commit.

Eskin argued Friday that there was no harm in letting Montgomery have his day in court. But Judge Hutchins responded: “He had his chance in court and gave it up.”

At that, Montgomery’s wife, Trisha, let out a sigh heard throughout the courtroom.

The judge said he had relied on Montgomery’s own declaration in making his decision. Hutchins said Montgomery could not change his pleas just because he changed his mind.

A plea could be withdrawn only if Montgomery could show a lack of understanding of the charges or that he was not adequately represented by lawyers, Hutchins said.

“Taken at face value, you see that Mr. Montgomery fell through a process and made a decision and then made a plea,” Hutchins said.

Then, referring to a second Montgomery lawyer, Daniel Schmidt, the judge said: “I listen to these pleas. . . . He said there were no threats made, and Mr. Schmidt agreed to the plea. For the court to reverse that course requires more than just feeling bad about the decision after it was made.”

Eskin argued that the former councilman’s judgment was impaired because of threats and bullying by the prosecution in the case. He said that during the grand jury inquiry, Montgomery was hounded into a last-minute plea under the threat of jail time. Eskin said his client was worried that he would lose his best job in almost a decade, as sales manager for a computer printer manufacturer.

Eskin, who served for four years as advisor to grand juries in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, said the whole case was an indictment against the local grand jury system. Characterizing the process as a “Star Chamber proceeding,” Eskin said his client was led into the inquiry ignorant of his rights.

“I read the grand jury transcripts. I saw things I thought were unconscionable--that I have never seen,” he said.

Eskin said that there were “ugly and pernicious” undertones to the whole investigation. “I was referring to the political implications of this whole thing,” Eskin said after the hearing.

Eskin said he felt the district attorney’s probe was politically and personally motivated, a charge that prosecutors have repeatedly denied.

“There was no sinister aspect to this case,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Mark Aveis said.