State v. Butterfly
Decision Date | 16 August 2016 |
Docket Number | No. DA 15–0391.,DA 15–0391. |
Citation | 2016 MT 195,377 P.3d 1191,384 Mont. 287 |
Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Roderick Lee BUTTERFLY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Jacquelyn M. Hughes, Hughes Law, P.L.L.C., Billings, Montana.
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Scott Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney, Mary Leffers Barry, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana.
¶ 1 The Third Judicial District Court dismissed Powell County escape charges against Roderick Lee Butterfly when the parties agreed to venue in Yellowstone County. After almost seven months, the State re-filed the charges in Yellowstone County. The principal dispute in this appeal is whether that time should count in analyzing Butterfly's speedy trial claim. The District Court ruled that the speedy trial clock did not start running at all until the Yellowstone County charges were filed. Although we count the time somewhat differently, we agree that Butterfly was not denied a speedy trial. We affirm the denial of his motion to dismiss.
¶ 2 On October 10, 2013, Butterfly failed to return to the Billings Pre–Release Center as scheduled. He was charged with escape in violation of § 45–7–306, MCA
, the following day in Powell County. Butterfly was arrested in Glacier County and was transferred to Montana State Prison (MSP). Butterfly objected to the Powell County venue, asserting that he should have been charged in Yellowstone County where the alleged offense took place. The State stipulated that venue was proper in Yellowstone County.
¶ 3 The State then moved to dismiss the escape charge without prejudice based on the parties' stipulation of proper venue. The Powell County District Court granted the State's motion and dismissed the case without prejudice on February 11, 2014. Nearly seven months later, on September 8, 2014, the State filed the escape charges in Yellowstone County. Butterfly was transferred from MSP to the Yellowstone County Detention Facility for prosecution. Trial was set for February 9, 2015.
¶ 4 Before trial, Butterfly filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of speedy trial, arguing that 445 days would have passed by the time he appeared for trial. Butterfly asserted that his right to speedy trial had attached upon his initial appearance on the Powell County charge and continued throughout the charge's dismissal and its pending re-filing in Yellowstone County. Butterfly attributed the excessive delay to the State and claimed that he had suffered prejudice because of it.
¶ 5 Following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Butterfly's motion to dismiss. It concluded that Butterfly's right to a speedy trial had not attached until the charges were re-filed in Yellowstone County—155 days before trial. The court also analyzed the alleged speedy trial violation under the factors articulated in State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶¶ 106–112, 338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815
, and concluded that there was “insufficient prejudice” to Butterfly to constitute a speedy trial violation. Butterfly later pleaded guilty to the escape charge, reserving the right to appeal the speedy trial issue.
¶ 6 A speedy trial violation presents a question of constitutional law that we review de novo to determine whether the court correctly interpreted and applied the law. State v. Zimmerman, 2014 MT 173, ¶ 11, 375 Mont. 374, 328 P.3d 1132
(citing Ariegwe, ¶ 119). We review the court's underlying factual findings for clear error. Zimmerman, ¶ 11.
¶ 7 Did the District Court err in denying Butterfly's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial?
guarantee every accused person the right to a speedy trial. Zimmerman, ¶ 12. When an accused claims that right has been violated, we consider (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reasons for the delay, (3) the accused's responses to the delay, and (4) prejudice to the accused as a result of the delay. Zimmerman, ¶ 12. We balance these factors “with any other relevant circumstances to determine whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated.” State v. Stops, 2013 MT 131, ¶ 19, 370 Mont. 226, 301 P.3d 811. “[E]ach factor's significance will vary from case to case,” and “a given factor may outweigh all of the others in one case but be of little consequence in another.” Ariegwe, ¶ 105.
MacDonald, 456 U.S. at 8, 102 S.Ct. at 1502
.
¶ 14 In MacDonald, a military physician was accused of committing murder on a military base. The Army charged MacDonald with the murders, but dropped the charges after several months and MacDonald was honorably discharged. MacDonald, 456 U.S. at 4–5, 102 S.Ct. at 1500
. Four years later, the government obtained an indictment in federal district court charging MacDonald with murder. MacDonald claimed that the delay violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the Fourth Circuit agreed. The United States Supreme Court reversed. MacDonald, 456 U.S. at 11, 102 S.Ct. at 1503. The Court concluded that the speedy trial guarantee did not attach to the time period after dismissal of the military charges and before the civil indictment. MacDonald, 456 U.S. at 7–8, 102 S.Ct. at 1501–02. The Court reasoned that during that time there was no pretrial incarceration, no impairment of liberty associated with being released on bail, and no “disruption of life caused by arrest and the presence of unresolved criminal charges.” MacDonald, 456 U.S. at 8, 102 S.Ct. at 1502. The Court stated, “Following dismissal of charges, any restraint on liberty, disruption of employment, strain on financial resources, and exposure to public obloquy, stress and anxiety is no greater than it is upon anyone openly subject to a criminal investigation.” MacDonald, 456 U.S. at 9, 102 S.Ct. at 1502.
¶ 15 As Butterfly points out, the MacDonald Court noted that the Fifth Circuit had “reached a seemingly contrary result” in Avalos by counting the time between indictments. MacDonald, 456 U.S. at 7 n. 7, 102 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Mosby
... ... Section 53-20-102(19), MCA. District court judges may only commit people to residential facilities based on a finding of serious developmental disability by the facility's screening team. Section 53-20-125(1)(b), MCA. 4 See State v. Butterfly , 2016 MT 195, 384 Mont. 287, 377 P.3d 1191 (discussing how a dismissal of charges removes the protection of the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial rights and substitutes due process standards similar to pre-indictment delay). Justice McKinnon's Concurrence adds context to the manner in which ... ...
-
State v. Mosby
... ... to self or others. Section 53-20-102(19), MCA. District court ... judges may only commit people to residential facilities based ... on a finding of serious developmental disability by the ... facility's screening team. Section 53-20-125(1)(b), ... [ 4 ] See State v. Butterfly, 2016 ... MT 195, 384 Mont. 287, 377 P.3d 1191 (discussing how a ... dismissal of charges removes the protection of the Sixth ... Amendment's speedy trial rights and substitutes due ... process standards similar to pre-indictment delay). Justice ... McKinnon's Concurrence adds context to the ... ...
-
State v. Chambers
...and applied the law. State v. Stewart , 2017 MT 32, ¶ 6, 386 Mont. 315, 389 P.3d 1009 ; State v. Butterfly , 2016 MT 195, ¶ 6, 384 Mont. 287, 377 P.3d 1191. Factual findings underlying a speedy trial analysis are reviewed for clear error. State v. Morsette , 2013 MT 270, ¶ 12, 372 Mont. 38,......
-
State v. Snider
...263 days. ¶ 17 The State does not bear a heavy burden to justify a delay of 263 days. See State v. Butterfly , 2016 MT 195, ¶ 26, 384 Mont. 287, 377 P.3d 1191 (holding that a 277-day delay "does not impose on the State a heavy burden to justify the delay" and citing cases). The District Cou......