Colville Confederated Tribes v. Jake, (2023)
| Docket Number | AP23-002 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 2023 |
| Citation | 8 CTCR 29, 16 CCAR 08 |
| Parties | COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES, Appellant v. Justine JAKE, Appellee |
| Court | Colville Confederated Tribes Court of Appeals |
Taima Carden, Office of Prosecuting Attorney, for the Appellant.
Michael Humiston, Attorney, for the Appellee.
Before Chief Justice Anita Dupris, Justice Mark W. Pouley, and Justice Jane M. Smith
Appellee Justine Jake, was charged with two drug charges on January 3 2023, and was arraigned on the same day. A bail hearing was also held on that date for two other outstanding cases. The Court granted Appellant, Colville Tribes, request for bail setting it at $250.00 each for the three charges i.e. $750.00 total.
On February 3, 2023 Appellee filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging she needed immediate medical care for broken infected teeth. The Judge granted the Writ and released Appellee on personal recognizance without providing notice to Appellant of the Writ, and without a hearing on the request. Appellant filed a timely appeal on February 9, 2023 and this Court held an Initial Hearing on February 17, 2023, at which we found the parties were to file briefs on the issue.
Is it appropriate for the Tribal Court to use CTC §2-2-211 to address bail modification when bail has already been allowed?
The issue is a question of law. The standard of review is de novo. CCT v. Naff, 2 CCAR 50 (1995).
We addressed the issue of using a Writ of Habeas Corpus for bail issues in Parisien v. CCT, 11 CCAR 51 (2014). It was the fourth case in which this Court reviewed CTC §2-2-211 in
2
light of interlocutory appeals alleging excessive bail. See, Matt v. CCT, 11 CCAR 50 (2013) Vargas v. CCT, AP13-016IA (unpublished opinion); and Friedlander v. CCT, AP13-017IA (unpublished opinion).
In Parisien we held "...the statutory law of the Tribes first directs the appellants to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the issue of bail (CTC §2-2-211) before bringing the matter before the Court of Appeals." We now hold this is the wrong interpretation of CTC §2-2-211, and we overturn this ruling based on the reasoning below.
CTC §2-2-211, Writ for Purpose of Bail, states: "When a person is imprisoned or detained in custody on any criminal charge, for want of bail, such person is entitled to a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the purpose of giving bail, upon averring that fact in his petition, without alleging that she is illegally confined." (Emphasis added). In our previous cases, culminating in Parisien, supra, we did not consider the part of the statute that referred to "for want of bail."
Further, in Parisien we held that the Trial Court's finding that a motion to reduce or reconsider bail reduction was more appropriate was not supported by the law. This was in error. Upon a careful reading of the statute, a Writ of Habeas Corpus for bail purposes is limited to those who have not been granted any bail. The defendant does not have to allege she is being illegally confined if she is filing under this statute.
In this case Appellee was granted bail; bail was set at $250.00 for each case, for a total of $750.00. Based on our caselaw at the time of Appellee filing the Writ of Habeas Corpus to address her request to be released on bail, Appellee was not in error. The Trial Court, however, did not follow the statute. It did not give notice to Appellant nor hold a hearing on the Writ. See CTC §§ 2-1-213 to 2-1-215. There is nothing in the record to show why the Trial Court did not follow the statute.
Whether a Writ would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial