OPINION
Dirk
Sandefur Justice
¶
1 By petition filed November 9, 2021, Petitioners Kyle Fouts
and Adam Meier in their above-referenced official capacities
with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human
Services (hereinafter interchangeably MDPHHS) petition this
Court for certiorari review of the October 17, 2021 judgment
of the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade
County, in the underlying matter of State v. Hanway,
Cause No. CDC-21-052, finding MDPHHS in indirect contempt of
referenced orders (directing the Montana State Hospital (MSH)
to accept custody and care of the underlying criminal
defendant (Hanway) for fitness rehabilitation pursuant to
§ 46-14-221(2)-(3), MCA) and thus imposing a $500
per-day coercive civil sanction pending subsequent compliance
with the subject orders. We reverse.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2
This case involves an extensive factual and procedural
history. In addition to the limited factual record presented
here, we take notice of the referenced proceedings in the
underlying matter as detailed by the "summary timeline
and undisputed facts" set forth in our prior November 2,
2021 Order in the related matter of Hanway v. Fouts,
Cause No. OP 21-0503 (denying Hanway's verified petition
for peremptory writ of mandamus compelling MDPHHS to
immediately comply with the District Court's underlying
August 19, 2021 order of commitment to MDPHHS fitness
rehabilitation pursuant to
§ 46-14-221 (2)-(3), MCA).[1] In accordance with the undisputed
facts noted in our prior November 2, 2021 Order, as
supplemented by the limited factual record presented here,
the following summary of facts are not subject to genuine
material dispute in regard to the pertinent underlying
proceedings in State v. Hanway, Cause No.
CDC-21-052:
• 2021-01-09: While incarcerated on a City of Great
Falls municipal court matter, and after allegedly refusing to
eat for several days, Hanway allegedly punched a detention
officer in the face through her jail cell food port at the
Cascade County Detention Center (CCDC) when the officer
delivered food and encouraged her to eat.
• 2021-01-20: The State accordingly charged Hanway by
Information with Assault on a Peace Officer, a felony in
violation of § 45-5-210(1)(a), MCA.
• 2021-01-22: Defense counsel filed an unopposed motion
pursuant to § 46-14-22 l(2)(a), MCA, for adjudication of
Hanway as "unfit to proceed" based on the prior
2020-10-16 defense-commissioned evaluation of Dr. Donna Zook,
Ph.D., in BDC-20-165, that diagnosed Hanway with
"disorganized schizophrenia" which rendered her
unfit "to proceed and stand trial" as referenced in
§§ 46-14-101(1)(a)(i) and -103, MCA.
• 2021-01-29: Pursuant to § 46-14-221(2)-(3), MCA,
the District Court accordingly: (1) adjudicated Hanway
"unfit to proceed"; (2) suspended the criminal
proceeding; (3) committed her "to the custody of MDPHHS
"to be placed at an appropriate [MDPHHS] facility ...
for so long as the unfitness endures or until disposition ...
is made pursuant to [§ 46-14-221, MCA], whichever occurs
first";[2] (4) directed the Cascade County Sheriff to
immediately transport Hanway to MSH "without delay"
upon coordination with MSH; and (5) set the 90-day review
hearing required by § 46-14-22 l(3)(a), MCA, for April
22, 2021. Upon advisory from MSH that it had no bed-space
then available at the MDPHHS Forensic Mental Health Facility
(FMHF) at Galen, Montana, and had thus placed Hanway on the
FMHF waiting list, the sheriff did not transport her as
directed.
• 2021-02-11: Upon notice from MDPHHS of available FMHF
bed-space, the sheriff transported Hanway to MSH which
accepted her for fitness rehabilitation in accordance with
the District Court's 2021-01-29 commitment order in this
matter and a similar order in BDC-20-165.
• 2021-04-20: In reference to this matter and the
by-then dismissed matter of BDC-20-165, MDPHHS/MSH issued a
written evaluation report confirming that Hanway was
suffering from "schizoaffective disorder" and that,
due to her "severe mental illness," she did not
have "the capacity to conform her behavior to the
requirements of the law" at the time of the subject
offenses.[3] The report further stated, however, that
she now "appear[s] to be capable of rational discussions
with" defense counsel and was thus "currently fit
to proceed."[4]
• 2021-04-22: The District Court conducted the 90-day
review hearing required by § 46-14-221(3), MCA. Based on
the 2021-04-20 MDPHHS/MSH report, and supplemental hearing
testimony of MSH Dr. Virginia Hill, the court adjudicated
Hanway fit to proceed and ordered resumption of the
previously suspended criminal proceeding.[5]
• 2021 -04-23: The District Court reduced Hanway's
bail pursuant to her represented motion.
• 2021-04-27: MDPHHS discharged Hanway for transport
back to the CCDC, after which her mother bailed her out of
jail on her recently reduced bail.
• 2021-05-18: The District Court reset trial in the
underlying matter for June 14, 2021.
• 2021-06-01: The District Court granted an unopposed
defense motion for a 60-day trial continuance in furtherance
of plea negotiations with the State.
• 2021-07-13: Following Hanway's recent June 29,
2021, arrest on a new offense allegedly committed when she
was out on bail (later formally charged in DDC-21-492),
defense counsel filed a motion for reevaluation of
Hanway's fitness to proceed pursuant to §46-14-202,
MCA.
• 2021-08-14: In conjunction with the July 13, 2021
defense motion, Dr. Zook attempted but was unable to conduct
a new fitness evaluation due to Hanway's reported refusal
to cooperate. Based on "extrapolation" from
Hanway's prior condition and circumstances, reported
discontinuation of prescribed mental health medication, and
referenced recent behavior, Dr. Zook again diagnosed Hanway
with "disorganized schizophrenia" and concluded
that she was again unfit to proceed.
• 2021-08-19: Based on Dr. Zook's 2020-08-14
evaluation update, [6] the District Court: (1) re-adjudicated
Hanway "unfit to proceed"; (2) again suspended the
criminal proceeding; (3) committed her "to the custody
of MDPHHS "to be placed in an appropriate [MDPHHS]
facility ... for so long as the unfitness endures or until
disposition ... is made pursuant to [§ 46-14-221,
MCA]"; and (4) ordered the sheriff to immediately
transport her to MSH on
coordination with MSH. As before, however, upon advisory from
MSH that it had no bed-space then available at the MDPHHS
FMHF, and that it had thus placed Hanway on the FMHF waiting
list, the sheriff again did not transport as directed.
• 2021-10-05: The State, through the Cascade County
Attorney, filed a motion for issuance of a contempt/show
cause order compelling MDPHHS to either accept custody of
Hanway pursuant to the court's 2021-08-19 commitment
order "within seven days," or alternatively, appear
and show cause why not. The court issued the State's
accompanying proposed order that same day.
• 2021-10-14: The District Court conducted a
contempt/show cause hearing at which the State, MDPHHS, and
Hanway appeared through counsel, with Hanway also present via
videoconferencing. The parties presented oral argument, but
no evidence. At the close of hearing, the court orally found
MDPHHS in indirect contempt of court based on non-compliance
with its 2021-10-05 alternative contempt show cause order.
¶3
On October 17, 2021, the District Court issued written
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a "Contempt
Order" based on the pertinent procedural history in the
underlying matter and the October 14th hearing record.
Inter alia, the court found that MDPHHS's
counsel made the following unsworn
"representations]" of fact:
(1) MDPHHS/MSH "only has six beds allocated for
women" at its FMHF;
(2) Hanway was then "'technically' in 9th place
on a list of 12 women awaiting admission" to the FMHF
unit but, as a practical matter, "may be closer to . . .
sixth";
(3) the "other women ahead of [her]" on the waiting
list "have been displaying at least equally troubling
psychotic behavior"; and
(4) "realistically ... it would be a month and a half or
so," at best, "before she would naturally be
admitted."
The
court's findings further noted that MDPHHS "had no
witnesses present" at the show cause hearing and that it
"did not ask to present testimony." The findings
further noted, however, that neither the State nor
Hanway's counsel disputed MDPHHS's
"representations." In its "conclusions of
law" the court further concluded, inter alia,
that:
(1) the "[c]ourt issued [its] October 5 transport order
without a hearing to implement its August 19 commitment
order";
(2) MDPHHS's "non-compliance with its" legal
obligations "threatens public safety";
(3) state agency "funding and staffing problems [do] not
excuse compliance with court orders issued to meet"
agency legal duties; and
(4) "[i]t is undisputed that [MDPHHS] has the
power to admit" Hanway "now"
"for restorative treatment" as ordered pursuant to
§ 46-14-221(2), MCA. (Emphasis original.)
Based
on its written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
District...
