City of Helena v. Broadwater

• Decision Date: 15 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. DA 13–0414.,DA 13–0414.
• Citation: 375 Mont. 450,329 P.3d 589
• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF HELENA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Tash Malloy BROADWATER, Defendant and Appellant.

375 Mont. 450

329 P.3d 589

CITY OF HELENA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Tash Malloy BROADWATER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA 13–0414.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs June 25, 2014.

Decided July 15, 2014.

For Appellant: Wade Zolynski, Chief Appellate Defender, Jonathan King, Counsel of Record, Office of the Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana.

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Jeffrey M. Hindoien, Helena City Attorney, Helena, Montana.

Justice PATRICIA COTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 In July 2011, Tash Broadwater was charged in Helena, Montana, with misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and disorderly conduct. He requested a municipal court jury trial. His scheduled trial was postponed based upon an older case being set for trial on the same day. Before the date of his rescheduled trial, Broadwater moved to dismiss the case for lack of a speedy trial. The municipal court granted the motion. The City of Helena appealed to the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, and the District Court reversed the municipal court's order. On remand, Broadwater was convicted in municipal court of DUI and acquitted of disorderly conduct. Broadwater appeals the District Court ruling reversing the municipal court's dismissal of the charges. We reverse the District Court and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Broadwater.

ISSUE

¶ 2 A restatement of the issue is whether the City of Helena met its burden under § 46–13–401(2), MCA, to show good cause for not bringing Broadwater to trial within six months.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On July 28, 2011, Broadwater was charged with DUI and disorderly conduct. On August 1, he appeared in the Helena Municipal Court and entered a plea of not guilty. At the omnibus hearing held on September 7, 2011, Broadwater requested a jury trial. The court set the trial for January 10, 2012. At the jury confirmation hearing on December 28, 2011, the municipal court notified Broadwater that his trial may not occur on January 10 because there were other cases on the court's calendar set for that day and the court heard cases in chronological order. In early January, the court informed Broadwater that his trial was rescheduled for February 14, 2012, because an older case had been set for trial on January 10. The February 14 trial date exceeded the statutory six-month period for conducting misdemeanor trials by 12 days. Section 46–13–401(2), MCA.

¶ 4 On January 31, 2012, Broadwater moved to have his case dismissed on the ground that the City failed to provide him with a speedy trial. On May 11, 2012, the municipal court granted Broadwater's motion to dismiss the charges holding that a “crowded” court calendar constituted “institutional delay” and was not justification for failing to provide Broadwater with a timely trial.

¶ 5 On May 18, 2012, the City of Helena filed a notice of appeal in the First Judicial District Court, arguing that the municipal court did not conduct a proper “speedy trial” analysis. The City noted that under § 46–13–401(2), MCA, and established case law, misdemeanor charges against a defendant should be dismissed if the defendant's trial is not conducted within six months of the defendant's plea. As a predicate to dismissal, it must be demonstrated that the defendant did not request a postponement of the trial, and that the State has not shown good cause for the delay. The City acknowledged that Broadwater did not request a postponement. It asserted, however, that the municipal court did not conduct a “good cause” analysis; rather, it summarily concluded that “good cause” did not exist.

¶ 6 On August 2, 2012, the District Court issued its Decision and Order in which it held that the City had shown good cause for the institutional delay. The District Court observed that based upon the municipal court's practice of scheduling backlogged cases in chronological order, the City “had no opportunity to assure a trial within the six-month period.” In response to Broadwater's claim of prejudice, the District Court determined that the delay of 12 or 13 days beyond the statutory six-month speedy trial requirement was unlikely to impair witness memories. The case was remanded to municipal court and on September 6, 2012, Broadwater was found guilty of DUI and acquitted of disorderly conduct.

¶ 7 Broadwater appeals the District Court's order reversing the municipal court's dismissal of the charges.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8 On appeal from a municipal court, the district court acts as an intermediate appellate court. When reviewing the decision of the district court in such an appeal, we review the case as if the appeal had originally been filed in this Court, applying the appropriate standard of review. City of Billings v. Nelson, 2014 MT 98, ¶ 15, 374 Mont. 444, 322 P.3d 1039(citing City of Bozeman v. Cantu, 2013 MT 40, ¶ 10, 369 Mont. 81, 296 P.3d 461). In its appellate capacity, the district court is confined to review of the record and questions of law. Section 3–6–110, MCA. It does not issue factual findings or make discretionary trial rulings. State v. Luke, 2014 MT 22, ¶ 9, 373 Mont. 398, 321 P.3d 70.

¶ 9 Whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated is a question of law and we review the trial court's legal conclusions to determine whether the court's interpretation is correct. Luke, ¶ 10; City of Helena v. Roan, 2010 MT 29, ¶ 7, 355 Mont. 172, 226 P.3d 601 (internal citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

¶ 10 Did the City of Helena meet its burden under § 46–13–401(2), MCA, to show good cause for not bringing Broadwater to trial within six months?

¶ 11 The applicable statute in this case, § 46–13–401(2), MCA, provides:

After the entry of a plea upon a misdemeanor charge, the court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the prosecution to be dismissed, with prejudice, if a defendant whose trial has not been postponed upon the defendant's motion is not brought to trial within 6 months.

¶ 12 Broadwater maintains on appeal that the City was obligated by this statute to bring him to trial by February 2, 2012, or provide “good cause” why it could not. Broadwater argues that the City merely asserted that the court's docket was crowded but failed to show how or why the crowded docket made it impossible to conduct his trial within the six-month timeframe. He notes that while the court could not conduct his trial on January 10, 2012, because of a conflict, 23 additional days remained to try him before the February 2 speedy trial deadline. He further submits that a crowded docket, on its own, should not be considered “good cause” because that “would essentially render the [speedy trial] statute ... meaningless.”

¶ 13 The State argues that the District Court correctly overturned the municipal court ruling because the municipal court did not apply the appropriate standard for reviewing misdemeanor speedy trial issues. The State asserts that the District Court properly interpreted and applied § 46–13–401(2), MCA, and urges us to look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether legally sufficient reasons, i.e., “good cause,” were presented for delaying Broadwater's trial.

¶ 14 While both parties present elements of a constitutional argument to the Court, we do not apply a constitutional analysis for speedy trial in misdemeanor cases because Montana's statutory speedy-trial protections regarding misdemeanors are “more strict than [our] constitutional analysis.” State v. Case, 2013 MT 192, ¶¶ 5–6, 371 Mont. 58, 305 P.3d 812. “The statute itself serves as the sole standard of whether ‘good cause’ for the delay has been shown.” State v. Martz, 2008 MT 382, ¶ 30, 347 Mont. 47, 196 P.3d 1239.

¶ 15 In Roan, we defined “good cause” in the context of the misdemeanor speedy trial statute:

Good cause is generally defined as a “legally sufficient reason” and referred to as “the burden placed on a litigant (usu. by court rule or order) to show why a request should be granted or an action excused.” ... Good cause will necessarily depend upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

Roan, ¶ 13 (internal citations omitted).

¶ 16 Roan was cited for misdemeanor reckless driving. He entered a plea of not guilty and a bench trial was scheduled. Two weeks before the trial date, Roan requested a jury trial which was scheduled to take...