Title: KNUTSON v STATE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 83-540 I : ? TEE SUPREME COURT Or TIE STATE OF MOTITANA 1984 PATRICIA A. KNUTSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- TIIF: STATL OF MONTANA, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Bonorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. COUEJSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: J. V. Barron argued, Great Palls, Montana For Respondent: Sarah M. Power argued, Agency Legal Services Bureau, GeLena, Montana - -- -- - - - - Submitted: June 6, 1984 Decided: June 28, 1994 - --- Clerk Patricia A. XCnutson eppa1.s from a summary jmdcjrnent granted by the Di.st.ric:t- Court, Eighth J i i d i c i . a I D,is.kri.~t:~ Cascade County, against. her claim for d.arnaqes for il.?ccynl imprisonment ,i.n the Montana State Prison -for' A p e r i . r r d of 274 days. Rnutson was convicted o r , a guilty pi.c?a to a felony charge of issiiing a bad c h e c k in the Cascade C0unt.y District Courk on J u l y 13, 1979, and was grantc?d a dceferred sentence? for a period of t h r e e years and placed on probat.ion, On December 16, 1981 Rnutson was convicted of forgery on a guilty plea i n tho District Court, TweI.fth Judicial. Dist.rj.ct-, Hi.13. Coilnty, an3 was sentenceci to 5 y e a r . : i.11 prison with the execution elf the entire 5 years s c r ? t : e a i c e suspeniieil. Rased or t h e forgery conviction i n Hi1 l County, Knut-son 's probation officer filed 3 report of viol a t i n n of the rondi,ti.oris of her deferred sentrenco and .the county attorney o : f Casca2e County on February 16, 1982 iil.et1 a petition I-o revoke K n l x P : ; o n ' s deferrc??d senfimci?, Fnl lowi.ng o revocation hearincy, Knutsonk d.eferred sentence was revoked on A p r i l 26, 1982 and she was sentenccxi t o selne 5 y e a r : ; irr prisor:. .'In t h e meanthe, this Court had held on February 3, 1981, in Crist: v. Secjria (Monk. 1901), 622 I"2d 1 0 2 0 , - 3 8 St.Rep. 1 5 0 , that section 53-30-105, MCA, then in cffcct, speci f i c d l y reyuirod that parolees be c r i . c l i . l : e d for good ti..me while on parol.e, subject to determinal:ion of good behavior and c e r n p l . i . a n t : r w i t h the .r-ul.t?s by the pri.son warden and tile Department of Insti.tutions, In two ~inpubl.i.shed cases, Miller v. SSat..e ( 1 9 R 2 ) r NO. 81-565 a t r i i S t a k e v, Gray ( 9 8 N o 82-1.64, we r l i . r e c t e c 3 +he I)c?pa,rtment o-F 1ns.l-itxtions to credit goncW.irnc nl.lowances to sentences where the defendnnt.:s were on probatiim while serving a suspended or deferred sentence, relying on our holding in Crist, supra. Xa.;eii on Crist and the unpubliished cases, w e granted post-con'iri.r.tien re:i.i.ef to Knutnon and ordered hcr reieiisci from a cus.todiai instit:ution. At khc time o f revocn"iio of her dei'rrred sentence on April 26, 3.982, she had accuniulated sufficient qeod time credit on p r o h n l - . i c i r i that her deferred sentence wornlri haw: beeti f"ul'1.y served. The state aqreed thn-r: she was entitled to rel.ea.;e under our c;iecisions. She was released on January 24, 1983. Xmitson Z : : i . ? c i d this suit: i.n the D , i . s f - i i c t : Court a g a i n s t the s k a t e , cl.aimi.nq t h a t he-r i.mprisonmenl: rrnm May 5, 1982 t : o January 24, 19133 was i1:lc~cjal. Wer a r r i e n d e c ? complaint aLl.eges l:.ha"rhc District Court acted as the a g e n t of the stafi. in revoking her deferred sentence. There i.5 a c?isp~sit:ive statute wtilich con-trois t . l ? i r ; s u i . t : . In section 2-9-112, MCA, it is provj~ded: . . i n r m u r i e from suit for acts or omissions o f : the i a r . . I " The sentence imposed upon Knutson For her violation of parn1.e was a judicial act. Artic1.e 11, S 1.8, 1972 Mnnt. Const., provides t h a t the stake sha1.l have no immuni.ty from suit o r injury to person or pr0perf.y unless specifical1y providcl by a i.aw pas.;ed bv a two t h i r d s v o t c o f each house o f t h e Legislature. Secti.cn 2-9-1 12, MCA, provides such an immim i t y . 111 gnantiiig summary judgment . t h e D i s t r i c t : C o u r t h e l d t h a t o w ( J e c i ~ i . o n s , csprxiii2.l.v t h a t i n C;ray, s u p r a , had p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n o n l y , and d i d n o t a p p l y .to K u u t s o n k d e f e r r e d s c n t e r i c e e n t e r e d ea:rli.er or1 September ! 0 , 1979; ancl t h a t t h e r e f o r e t h e pc?tifj.on t o r e v o k e h e r deferurc? s e n t e n c e statas was t i m e l y "il.eci wi.thi.n t h e t h r e e - y e a r p e r i o d o:F t h e d e f e r r e d s e n t e n c e . I n e f f e c t t h e D i s t r i c t Court. f ounii 4.ha.t i t had had j u r i s d i c t i c n t o r c v o k c X n u t s o n ' s s e n t e n c e , al-though o u r d e c i s i o n i n r e l e a s i n g Knutson would i.ndi.cote o-t:lrerwi se . T h e r e i s n o need for s e m a n t i c s i n t h i s case, however. The i.~nniui\ity stz3tut.e a p p l e s t o j u d i c i a i a c t s w i t h no s t a t e d l i m i t a t i - o n , it a p p l i e s to p r o t e c t t h e state and governmental,. a g e n c i e s whenever t h e j u d i c i a l . power o f t h e state 5.s p u t t o u s e i n a -jut"lici.al ;tcti.orr. Althouqh .the r e a s o n g i v e n by t h e Di.strj-ct C o u r t j.n g r a n t i n g sununary judgment was i n c o r r e c t , its r e s u l t c a n be sustai.neci i.mder t h e wrong-yeason, s i g h t - r e s u : l t- appeJ.'l ate r u l e . F e r y u s County v. 0sweiie.r (l938), 1 0 7 Mnnt. 4 6 6 , 86 P.Zd 410. Xnutson a r g u e s on a p p e a l that t h e immunity s t a t u t e d o e s n o t apply h e r e h e c a u s e t h e Department o f I n s t i t u t i o n s b r e a c h e d its d u t y tc determine t h e good t i m e t o which s h e was e n t i t l e d and t.o not.i.fy t h e Di.strict C o u r t accordi.ngly. She costtends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court i.n t h i s case a c t e d o n l y as the v e h i c l e tlirtouah whi.eh ,the harm c a u s e d by t h e Department nf I n s t i t x t i o n s a f f e c t e d h e r . T h a t argument is a s u l ~ s t a n t j . n 1 change o f t h e o r y from h e r e a r 3 . i e r complaint i n t h i s c a s e , y e t it avai 1.s Knutson n e t h i n y . S e n t e n c e s are pronounced by c o u r t s , n o t by t h e Department of 1 n s t i t : u t i o n s . K m l t s o n ' s s e n t e n c i n g was tiir? r e s u l t of a j u d i c i r i l act, F u r t h e r , t h e immunity stat-vte prot~"~4:s any gnvernmental itcjcsicy invol.vc?d :in the j u d i c i a l act of sientencing. A f f i r u n d . We Concur: