Stidham not guilty plea denied

A Havre judge Monday ruled against a Havre woman’s request to back out of a plea agreement.

Cindy Stidham, born in 1966, had moved to change her plea of no contest to an assault charge stemming from threatening her husband with his own gun, and her guilty plea to a charge of possessing methamphetamine while out on bail awaiting trial on the assault charge.

Her attorney, Paul Neal, argued that she could not be held to an agreement that she thought she understood when she did not.

State District Judge Dan Boucher said her claim that she did not understand the plea agreement she signed was “illogical” and that her statements were not credible. He ruled against Stidham’s motion, saying he would check with everyone’s schedules and set a sentencing hearing.

Both Boucher and Hill County Attorney Gina Dahl noted that Stidham’s request to withdraw her pleas did not come until after a probation officer recommended a sterner sentence than was in the plea agreement — 10 years with five suspended rather than eight suspended.

Stidham was charged after she went to the business and residence of her then-estranged husband, Randy Stidham and threatening him with his own .22 caliber pistol.

Boucher Monday reduced Stidham’s bond from $50,000 to $10,000 and said he would consider changing an order that she have limited contact with Randy Stidham if he provided a written statement that he would supervise his wife if she were released to live with him.

Randy Stidham knocked his own gun out of his wife’s hand after she cocked and pointed it at him June 20, 2013. He and two of their daughters then struggled with Cindy Stidham, who then fled the scene. She later was found at a North Havre residence and arrested for assault and possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia, with another assault charge later amended to attempted murder.

The Hill County attorney a week later charged her in court with assault with a weapon rather than attempted murder.

Randy Stidham told investigating officers that when he picked up his gun from the floor, he noticed it had jammed. He said he was glad Cindy Stidham had not brought his 9 mm pistol instead because it does not jam and he would have been shot.

Stidham later was accused on four occasions of violating conditions of her release on bond while awaiting trial, and was charged with a new felony on the last arrest, in January, for possessing meth. She was accused on several occasions of both violating a ban on being in a bar or consuming alcohol and having no contact with her husband by going out drinking at local bars with him.

She signed a plea agreement and pleaded no contest in February to the 2013 felony assault with a weapon charge and a misdemeanor partner or family member assault charge, not admitting guilt but admitting the prosecution likely would convict her at trial, and guilty to the January charges of possessing meth.

At a sentencing hearing in April 21, Boucher, Hill County Attorney Gina Dahl and Public Defender Thomas Schoenleben all noted that written comments Stidham had made during a presentence investigation indicated she did not agree to the recommended sentence — 10 years with eight suspended — and that she was dissatisfied with Schoenleben’s work, despite telling Boucher both that day and in February that she was satisfied with his work.

Stidham in her written comments requested a completely suspended sentence.

The sentencing hearing was continued, and April 28 Stidham moved to withdraw from the plea agreement.

Stidham testified Monday that she did not understand the plea agreement until the probation officer conducting the presentence investigation told her that the eight years suspended meant she would be under supervision of probation and parole for those eight years.

She said she did not understand the meaning of a suspended sentence.

“I’ve never been in trouble my entire life,” she said.

Dahl asked her if she had understood previous suspended sentences judges had imposed on her, including May 2013 suspended sentences for endangering the welfare of children and obstructing a peace officer.

Boucher also asked Stidham about her acknowledging during hearings that she understood the plea agreement and that he would not have to follow the recommendations and could impose the maximum sentence for assault with a weapon, 20 years in prison.

When he ruled against her motion to withdraw her pleas, he said she complained about the agreement in her written statements before meeting with the probation officer.

“It’s illogical to me that that meeting clued you in,” Boucher said.