State v. Pehringer

• Docket Number: DA 21-0337
• Decision Date: 01 August 2023
• Citation: 2023 MT 146
• Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ISAIAH JAMES PEHRINGER, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

1

2023 MT 146

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ISAIAH JAMES PEHRINGER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA 21-0337

Supreme Court of Montana

August 1, 2023

Submitted on Briefs: May 10, 2023

Appeal From: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Custer, Cause No. DC 2020-44 Honorable Michael B. Hayworth, Presiding Judge

For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Alexander H Pyle, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana

For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Christine Hutchison, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Wyatt Glade, Custer County Attorney, Miles City, Montana

OPINION

JIM RICE, JUSTICE

¶1 Isaiah James Pehringer appeals from the judgment entered by the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, adjudging him guilty of five offenses: felony assault on a peace officer or judicial officer, in violation of § 45-5-210(1)(a), MCA (Count II); misdemeanor assault, in violation of § 45-5-201(1)(a), MCA (Count I); and three counts of misdemeanor assault with a bodily fluid, in violation of § 45-5-214(1)(a)(iii), MCA (Counts III, IV, and V). Pehringer, a youth at the time of the offenses, pled guilty to the four misdemeanor charges, and proceeded to jury trial on the felony charge, for which he was found guilty. Pehringer challenges the District Court's jurisdiction over the misdemeanor charges, and the District Court's imposition of statutory charges within his sentences. We address the following issues, affirming in part and reversing in part:

1. Did the District Court err by exercising jurisdiction over the misdemeanor charges as arising during the commission of a felony charge enumerated in § 41-5-206, MCA?

2. Did the District Court err by imposing a $20 statutory charge in the written judgment upon the sentence for Count III, rather than the statutory surcharge of $15, and by imposing a $200 statutory charge upon a suspended $2,000 fine for Count II?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Pehringer pled guilty to misdemeanor Counts I, III, IV, and V, and the related facts are drawn from the charging documents, as well as from the trial conducted on felony Count II. On December 8, 2019, around 3:15 p.m., Pehringer who was a detainee at the Pine Hills Youth Correctional Facility, entered the facility's gymnasium, walked up to another youth, and began punching him in the head (Count I). Staff members intervened pulled Pehringer away from the youth, and eventually placed him in restraints. While he was being taken from the gymnasium, Pehringer attempted to spit on and kick other juveniles, leading the staff to place leg restraints on Pehringer, which he resisted, attempting to bite the staff.^[1] Staff members then carried Pehringer to his cell, where they removed his restraints. Pehringer had turned 17 years of age about two months prior to this incident.

¶3 In his cell, Pehringer became agitated, tore up his shirt, and threatened to hang himself with it. Staff determined they needed to move Pehringer to a cell that had a camera so they could monitor his behavior. Five staff members suited up in tactical gear and, using a "pin shield," entered Pehringer's cell. Pehringer kicked and punched the staff members. One of them, Officer Charles Davis, a shift supervisor at Pine Hills, testified that, as he and Officer Renn Ewalt tried to restrain Pehringer's legs, Pehringer kicked Officer Davis in the chest and kicked Officer Ewalt in the thumb, injuring it (Count II). During the encounter, Pehringer spat on Officer Richard Egger, another member of the team (Count III).

¶4 On January 3, 2020, Pehringer requested a copy of his disciplinary write up. Officer Rory English delivered a tablet on which Pehringer could review the write-up, but when he went to retrieve the tablet, Pehringer threw a cup of his urine on Officer English, stating "[h]ow does that piss taste you fucking bitch." (Count IV). Then, on January 14, 2020, an altercation between Pehringer and another youth led to Pehringer being taken back to his cell. Pehringer confronted Officer Davis and spit his lunch on him (Count V).

¶5 The State filed an Information in District Court charging Pehringer with five counts: felony assault on a peace officer (Count II), misdemeanor assault (Count I), and three counts of misdemeanor assault with bodily fluid (Counts III, IV, and V). After holding a transfer hearing, the District Court ruled it would retain jurisdiction over all of the counts charged in the case. Pehringer did not challenge the District Court's authority to do so. On April 12, 2021, the day before Pehringer's scheduled jury trial, Pehringer entered guilty pleas to the four misdemeanor counts. Pehringer went to trial the next day on the felony assault charge (Count II), and was found guilty.

¶6 Pehringer was sentenced to 6 months custody for the misdemeanor simple assault, 240 days in custody for each assault with bodily fluid to run concurrently, and 10 years with 5 years suspended for the felony assault. The District Court orally imposed financial obligations, including a $15 surcharge on each misdemeanor, a $2,000 fine for the felony which the court suspended, and a $200 surcharge for the felony. In its written order, the District Court imposed the same financial obligations except that it imposed $20 surcharges on the misdemeanors instead of $15. Pehringer appeals, challenging the District Court's jurisdiction over the four misdemeanor charges and the imposition of the surcharges.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 Whether a district court possesses subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo. In re K.B., 2016 MT 73, ¶ 10, 383 Mont. 85, 368 P.3d 722. This Court reviews criminal sentences for legality which is determined by considering "whether the sentence falls within the statutory parameters, whether the district court had statutory authority to impose the sentence, and whether the district court followed the affirmative mandates of the applicable sentencing statutes." State v. Steger, 2021 MT 321, ¶ 7, 406 Mont. 536, 501 P.3d 394 (quoting State v. Ingram, 2020 MT 327, ¶ 8, 402 Mont. 374, 478 P.3d 799).

DISCUSSION

¶8 1. Did the District Court err by exercising jurisdiction over the misdemeanor charges as arising during the commission of a felony charge enumerated in § 41-5-206 MCA?

¶9 Pehringer challenges the District Court's jurisdiction over the four misdemeanor charges. Jurisdiction is a "court's fundamental authority to hear and adjudicate cases or proceedings." In re E.G., 2014 MT 148, ¶ 11, 375 Mont. 252, 326 P.3d 1092 (quoting Matter of A.D.B., 2013 MT 167, ¶ 54, 370 Mont. 422, 305 P.3d 739. "The district court has original jurisdiction in all criminal cases amounting to felony and all civil matters and cases at law and equity," and "shall have the power of . . . such additional jurisdiction as may be delegated by the law of the United States or the state of Montana." Mont. Const. art. VII, § 4; In re E.G., ¶ 9. "The youth court has original jurisdiction over cases involving persons under age 18." In re E.G., ¶ 9 (citing State v. Andersen-Conway, 2007 MT 281, ¶ 15, 339 Mont. 439, 171 P.3d 678.). However, if a youth is 17 years old at the time he allegedly commits an offense enumerated in § 41-5-206(1), MCA, including assault on a peace officer or judicial officer, "[t]he county attorney shall file with the district court a petition for leave to file an information in district court." Section 41-5-206(2), MCA (emphasis added). An offense not enumerated within § 41-5-206(1), MCA, but which "arises during commission of a crime" so enumerated, "may be transferred to district court" with the enumerated offense, upon motion of the county attorney, a hearing, and order of the district court. Section 41-5-206(5), MCA. Here, the District Court retained jurisdiction over the four misdemeanor charges, Counts I, III, IV, and V, and the question raised by Pehringer is whether these crimes "[arose] during the commission" of Count II, the enumerated offense of felony assault on a peace officer, thus authorizing the District Court to exercise jurisdiction over those charges in conjunction with the felony charge. Section 41-5-206(5), MCA.^[2]

¶10 When interpreting a statute, this Court's goal is to "ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent." State v. Quensel, 2009 MT 388, ¶ 16, 353 Mont. 317, 220 P.3d 634 (quoting Shelby Distributors, LLC v. Mont. Dept. of Revenue, 2009 MT 80, ¶ 18, 349 Mont. 489, 206 P.3d 899). To do so, we look at the statute in its entirety, noting that "statutory construction is a 'holistic endeavor' and must account for the statute's text, language, structure, and object." City of Missoula v. Fox, 2019 MT 250, ¶ 18, 397 Mont. 388, 450 P.3d 898 (quoting State v. Heath, 2004 MT 126, ¶ 24, 321 Mont. 280, 90 P.3d 426) (internal citations omitted). "The duty of this Court is to 'read and construe each statute as a whole' so that we may 'give effect to the purpose of the statute.'" City of Missoula, ¶ 18 (quoting State v. Triplett, 2008 MT 360, ¶ 25, 346 Mont. 383, 195 P.3d 819) (internal citations omitted).

¶11 The State concedes the District Court erred by retaining jurisdiction over Counts IV and V, agreeing with Pehringer's argument that those crimes, committed respectively on January 3 and on January 14, 2020, did not arise during the commission of the December 8, 2019, assault on a peace officer, and were properly subject only to youth court jurisdiction. We concur with the parties that these two offenses did not arise during the commission of the felony assault and therefore the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over them, requiring reversal of Counts IV and V. The parties disagree regarding...