State v. Dubray
Decision Date | 02 December 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 82-123,82-123 |
Citation | 201 Mont. 327,654 P.2d 970,39 St.Rep. 2142 |
Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Anthony DUBRAY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Richard J. Pinsoneault, St. Ignatius, for defendant and appellant.
Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., Helena, Richard P. Heinz, County Atty., Polson, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant appeals a Lake County District Court order dismissing his appeal from Justice Court. On October 9, 1981, a Justice Court in Ronan, sitting without a jury, convicted defendant of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and imposed a $300 fine ($150 suspended).
Immediately after trial, defendant's counsel notified the Justice Court judge, and clerk, that there would be an appeal. Within six days after trial, defendant's attorney mailed a notice of appeal, a motion for stay of enforcement of judgment, and an order for the justice of the peace's signature. In a letter accompanying these documents, the defendant also directed the Justice Court to transmit the record to the District Court. Within five days, the Justice Court signed the stay of execution, but failed to transmit the record to the District Court as the defendant had requested.
The first indication the defendant had, that the Justice Court had not transmitted the record, came approximately four months after he filed the notice of appeal. At that time, the county attorney's office filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the District Court because the record had not been transmitted from the Justice Court. The District Court held a hearing on the motion and received testimony from both the justice of the peace and the clerk for the Justice Court. During the hearing, the clerk testified that she had prepared the record for transmittal, but for some reason overlooked actually mailing it to the District Court. The District Court then ordered the appeal dismissed, because the record had not been transmitted within 30 days of the date of judgment, as required under section 46-17[201 Mont. 329] -311(3), MCA, which states:
In his appeal to this Court, the defendant raises the following issue:
We order the District Court to reinstate the appeal. The inquiry focuses on the meaning of the statement in section 46-17-311(3) stating: "It is the duty of the defendant to perfect the appeal." We conclude that if all other procedures have been followed, and the defendant requests the justice court to transmit a record to a higher court, he has perfected the appeal.
This holding is necessary to guarantee fairness to defendants desiring to appeal from a justice court judgment. The justice court has complete control over the record of a proceeding in its court and therefore the justice court should be responsible for any physical transmittal of the record. In fact, in civil cases, the justice of the peace has an affirmative statutory duty to transmit the record to the district court. Section 25-33-104, MCA states: "Upon the filing of the notice of appeal ... the justice or judge must, within 10 days ... transmit to the clerk of the District Court a certified copy [of all papers in the case]." If the legislature intended to impose this duty on justice courts in civil cases, we see no harm in imposing the same requirement in criminal cases.
This duty is necessary to insure that a defendant appealing from a justice court (or city court) will in fact get his case to the district court to hear the appeal. Failure or refusal of the justice court to transmit the record would otherwise mean that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sol
...Speith, 797 P.2d at 222, while physically transmitting the record is the responsibility of the Justice Court. State v. Dubray (1982), 201 Mont. 327, 329-30, 654 P.2d 970, 971-72. Under § 46-17-311(3), MCA (1989), an appellant was charged with the duty of perfecting the appeal and the conseq......
-
State v. Speith
...to perfect the appeal lies, must request the justice or city court to transmit the record to the district court. State v. Dubray (1982), 201 Mont. 327, 331, 654 P.2d 970, 972. According to the record, the City of Bozeman did not receive a request for transmittal of the record until January ......
-
State v. Hartford
...since our decision in Mortenson. Hartford cites State v. Main (Mont.1981), 623 P.2d 1382, 38 St.Rep. 205; and, State v. Dubray (1982), 201 Mont. 327, 654 P.2d 970. In Main, the pertinent issue involved transmittal of the record, not the filing of a notice of appeal. Likewise, Dubray did not......
-
Petersen v. ALADDIN STEEL PRODUCTS, INC., 99-180.
...impose on it the burden of physically transferring the record from the Small Claims Court to District Court. See State v. Dubray (1982), 201 Mont. 327, 330, 654 P.2d 970, 972 (holding that defendant's duty to perfect the appeal in a criminal case did not impose on him burden of physically t......