Montgomery Faces Sentencing in Conflict of Interest

After four attorneys and eight months of legal maneuvering, former Moorpark city councilman Scott Montgomery finally appears headed for sentencing on criminal conflict-of-interest charges.

A Ventura County judge ruled Monday that there was no new evidence to justify Montgomery’s most recent request to withdraw the guilty plea he entered in October. The former councilman now faces up to 3 1/2 years in prison and $10,000 in fines at a sentencing hearing set for Wednesday.

But Montgomery’s attorney, James Farley, said Monday that he holds out one last hope to avert the sentencing.

Farley said Municipal Judge Thomas Hutchins threw out his motion to withdraw Montgomery’s plea on a technicality and that all he needs to do for reconsideration is file an affidavit outlining new evidence.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Mark Aveis disagreed, saying the judge recognized that Farley simply failed to produce anything new.

Aveis had asked the judge to fine the defense attorney for a “meritless” motion and sanction him for allegations Farley made against other politicians, but Hutchins declined to do so.

Now that the judge has quashed the latest effort to withdraw the guilty plea, Aveis said he hopes the case can move forward. “It’s been frustrating,” he said.

Repeating comments by another judge in the matter who said this case had a “tortured history,” Aveis said, “I’m not the one who’s been torturing it.”

In October, Montgomery pleaded guilty to felony and misdemeanor conflict of interest for taking a $3,500 loan from a trash company executive whose firm was negotiating a contract with the city.

Soon after making the plea, though, Montgomery and his attorneys tried to take it back, saying the former councilman had been bullied and coerced into pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit.

In January, Montgomery’s first motion to have his plea withdrawn was denied. With a new lawyer, he submitted a second request last week.

Judge Hutchins said in court Monday that the law requires some new, compelling evidence for the court to reconsider a motion.

“My gosh, otherwise every time you have a new lawyer you would have a new motion,” Hutchins said.

Turning to Farley, Hutchins asked, “What’s the new information?”

Farley said there was an abundance of new information in his motion. He acknowledged that some of the points had been raised by Montgomery’s previous attorneys, but said many were not fully explored because prosecutors did not turn over evidence in a timely manner.

“I thought I had clearly set forth the new information,” Farley said in court.

In his 48-page motion, Farley said the plea should be withdrawn for several reasons, including the following allegations:

* Montgomery was singled out for “discriminatory prosecution.” Farley argued that other eastern Ventura County politicians were “in deeper,” with the trash firm, GI Industries, but only Montgomery was investigated.

* Evidence favorable to Montgomery was suppressed by the prosecution. Farley only cited a statement attributed to one of the trash company executives that said Montgomery sometimes voted against the firm.

Those claims were countered by prosecutor Aveis, who said Farley was merely putting “a new spin on an old story.”

Montgomery is set to be sentenced Wednesday by Superior Court Judge Charles Campbell Jr.