State v. Ronningen, 84-203
| Decision Date | 20 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-203,84-203 |
| Citation | 213 Mont. 358,691 P.2d 1348 |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ronald Lee RONNINGEN, Defendant and Respondent. |
Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., Helena, Harold F. Hanser, County Atty., Billings, for plaintiff and appellant.
Law Offices of Russell K. Fillner, Billings, for defendant and respondent.
The State of Montana appeals from an order of the Yellowstone County District Court dismissing a misdemeanor charge filed against the defendant, Ronald Lee Ronningen, because of the State's failure to bring the matter to trial within the statutorily mandated six-month period for all misdemeanors. The trial court ruled that the sole question under the statute is whether the State demonstrated "good cause" for the delay, and that the State did not do so. We affirm.
The State argues first that the trial court erred because it did not consider, in addition to the "good cause" requirement of the statute, other factors that may bear on delay attributable to the State. Second, the State argues that it did establish "good cause" for the delay beyond the six-month deadline of the statute. The statute applies only to misdemeanors. Section 46-13-201(2), MCA, provides:
"The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution to be dismissed if a defendant whose trial has not been postponed upon his application is not brought to trial within 6 months after entry of plea upon a complaint, information, or indictment charging a misdemeanor." (Emphasis added.)
This statute mandates dismissal of a misdemeanor charge if not brought to trial within six months if defendant has not asked for the postponement and if the State has not shown good cause for the delay. The State effectively concedes and the record shows that defendant did not ask for a postponement. The record is just as clear that the State had several chances to have the trial set within the statutory deadline, but failed to do so.
On October 12, 1983, the State filed a misdemeanor information in Yellowstone County District Court charging defendant with violating section 61-7-103, MCA, a charge that he failed to remain at the scene of a personal injury accident. On the same day, the defendant appeared and pled not guilty and the court set trial for February 28, 1984, well within the six-month statutory deadline. However, on January 15, 1984, the judge who was to preside over the February 28 trial announced his resignation effective on February 3. Despite this announcement the State did nothing to assure that the February 28 trial date was still on. The State neither moved for another judge to preside over the trial nor that another trial date be set before another judge that would be within the six-month statutory deadline.
After the resignation became effective on February 3, the chief district judge issued an order on February 6 declaring that during the vacancy created by the judge's resignation, counsel who had pending criminal matters before the retired judge that required attention, could have a temporary judge assigned upon request. The State failed to ask that a temporary judge be assigned so that the case would be heard on February 28 or on any other date within the statutory deadline.
On February 16, the chief district judge issued a memorandum stating that all hearings, pretrials and trials that had been set for hearing before March 16 by the judge who had retired, would be vacated and reset at a later time. The State knew that the February 28 trial setting was off but that it would have to be reset and tried before the statutory deadline. However, the State did nothing until after the new judge had been sworn in on March 16, a month after the State was notified that the February 28 trial setting was vacated.
On March 23, counsel for the State met with the new judge and asked that trial be set for defendant. The Court set April 30 as the trial date and March 30 as the omnibus hearing for all motions to be considered. The State's counsel did not inform the judge that the trial setting was beyond the statutory six-month deadline, and clearly consented to the setting.
On March 30, counsel for the State and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bullock
...there was no trial in the Justice Court, and that instead, the result in this case is controlled by our decision in State v. Ronningen (1984), 213 Mont. 358, 691 P.2d 1348. The State responds that § 46-13-401(2), MCA, applies only to justice court and that there is no practical reason for d......
-
State v. Clark
...we simply use the statute as containing the sole standard of whether "good cause" for the delay has been shown. State v. Ronningen, 213 Mont. 358, 691 P.2d 1348, 1350 (1984). Still other courts focus their analysis on a particular factor mentioned in Barker a factor we believe lies at the h......
-
City Of Helena v. Roan
...Good cause will necessarily depend upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In State v. Ronningen, 213 Mont. 358, 362-63, 691 P.2d 1348, 1350-51 (1984), we held that the State failed to demonstrate good cause when it took no action to prosecute the defendant wh......
-
City of Helena v. Broadwater
...unavailability in such circumstances constituted “good cause.” Roan, ¶¶ 2 and 4–6. ¶ 17 Conversely, in State v. Ronningen, 213 Mont. 358, 362, 691 P.2d 1348, 1350–51 (1984), we held that the State failed to demonstrate good cause when it took no action to prosecute the defendant when the pr......