Title: STATE v CARDWELL

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 80-314 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs . CURTIS CARDWELL, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin. Hon. W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: A. Michael Salvagni argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Chris Tweeten appeared, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Michael Lilly argued, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: February 17, 1981 Decided: MAR 2 4 1981 Filed: MljR 24. 1!?8f v I Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Cardwell a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n by a G a l l a t i n County j u r y of tampering w i t h a w i t n e s s and misdemeanor a s s a u l t . I n S t a t e v. Cardwell ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. - , 609 P.2d 1230, 37 St.Rep. 750, we r e v e r s e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f i r s t c o n v i c t i o n s on c h a r g e s of a i d i n g and a b e t t i n g another i n t h e commission of t h e o f f e n s e of tampering w i t h w i t n e s s e s and aggravated a s s a u l t . I n doing s o , we r u l e d t h a t s e c t i o n 46-11-403, MCA, a l l o w i n g t h e amendment o f a c r i m i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h o u t l e a v e of c o u r t , was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . Af t e r t h e o p i n i o n was e n t e r e d , Cardwell asked t h i s Court f o r an o r d e r d i s c h a r g i n g him from t h e s t a t e p r i s o n . W e o r d e r e d him r e l e a s e d and bound over t o G a l l a t i n County a u t h o r i t i e s f o r r e a r r a i g n m e n t on t h e o r i g i n a l c h a r g e s . Defendant moved t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r d i s m i s s a l on t h e grounds of double jeopardy and speedy t r i a l v i o l a t i o n s . The motion was denied. The cause went t o t r i a l on June 10, 1980. The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t of g u i l t y on t h e l e s s e r included o f f e n s e s of misdemeanor a s s a u l t and tampering w i t h a w i t n e s s , a f e l o n y . T h i s appeal f o l l o w s . The underlying f a c t s of t h i s c a s e have no b e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e s involved i n t h e appeal and w i l l n o t be r e c i t e d . They can be found i n our f i r s t Cardwell o p i n i o n , c i t e d above. Defendant o f f e r s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r our review: 1. Did t h e second t r i a l v i o l a t e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o be p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t double jeopardy a s guaranteed by t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ? 2. Did t h e a c t i o n of t h i s Court and t h e subsequent d e t e n t i o n and t r i a l v i o l a t e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s under t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e s of t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ? 3. Was d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l d e n i e d ? Double Jeopardy T h i s C o u r t ' s remand o r d e r i n S t a t e v. Cardwell, s u p r a , provided: "The c a u s e is r e v e r s e d and t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t is o r d e r e d d i s m i s s e d . " Cardwell m a i n t a i n s t h a t h i s second t r i a l v i o l a t e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s a g a i n s t double jeopardy. Benton v. Maryland ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707. See a l s o A r t . 11, S e c t i o n 25, 1972 Mont. Const. Defendant c i t e s numerous d e c i s i o n s by t h i s Court f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t double jeopardy e x i s t s whenever t h i s Court f a i l s t o o r d e r a new t r i a l . S t a t e v. Hodgson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 603 P.2d 246, 36 St.Rep. 2121; S t a t e v. H o l l i d a y ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 598 P.2d 1132, 36 St.Rep. 1535; S t a t e ex r e l . Nelson v. E l l s w o r t h ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 1 4 1 Mont. 78, 375 P.2d 316. W e do n o t a g r e e t h a t such a r u l e can be found i n t h e s e d e c i s i o n s . I n E l l s w o r t h , s u p r a , t h i s Court e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e r u l e of law was c l e a r : " . . . a r e v e r s a l o f a judgment of c o n v i c t i o n upon a p p e a l and a r e t r i a l d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e double jeopardy." 141 Mont. a t 81. The r u l e i n E l l s w o r t h was based on t h e c a s e of S t a t e v. Aus ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 105 Mont. 82, 69 P.2d 584. Cardwell u n d e r s c o r e s t h e l a n g u a g e o f Aus f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f emphasizing s e v e r a l p o i n t s : (1) when a new t r i a l is g r a n t e d , t h e d e f e n d a n t is n o t p l a c e d i n d o u b l e jeopardy b u t merely s u b j e c t e d t o t h e same jeopardy he was i n d u r i n g t h e f i r s t t r i a l ; ( 2 ) t h e d e f e n d a n t may n o t be t r i e d a g a i n f o r t h e same o f f e n s e e x c e p t i n t h e c a s e where a new t r i a l is g r a n t e d or o r d e r e d ; and ( 3 ) a person c o n v i c t e d of a crime waives h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t being twice i n jeopardy where a t h i s r e q u e s t t h e v e r d i c t a g a i n s t him is s e t a s i d e and a new t r i a l g r a n t e d . Defendant Cardwell admits t h a t i f t h i s Court had o r d e r e d or g r a n t e d a new t r i a l , a s i n Aus and its progeny, he would n o t have been a b l e t o c l a i m t h a t he was placed i n double jeopardy by t h e second t r i a l . Cardwell concludes t h a t t h e s a l i e n t d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e p r e c e d e n t c a s e s c i t e d and h i s c a s e is t h e absence of an e x p r e s s o r d e r of t h i s Court d i r e c t i n g t h e new proceeding. The i s s u e b e f o r e u s is more p r o p e r l y framed i n terms of whether t h e f a i l u r e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y and e x p r e s s l y o r d e r a new t r i a l n e c e s s a r i l y p r e c l u d e s f u r t h e r a c t i o n . I t is our o p i n i o n t h a t it does n o t . Cardwell c o r r e c t l y r e c i t e s t h e c a s e law a p p l i c a b l e t o former jeopardy p r o t e c t i o n s a s t h e y have been i n t e r p r e t e d by t h i s Court i n t h e Aus l i n e of c a s e s . W e a r e n o t persuaded by d e f e n d a n t ' s l o g i c , however, t h a t t h e remand o r d e r must o r d e r a new t r i a l f o r one t o o c c u r . Our remand o r d e r s do n o t e x i s t i n t h e a b s t r a c t , independent o f t h e s u p p o r t i n g o p i n i o n . I n t h e body of t h e Cardwell o p i n i o n , we wrote: " S e c t i o n 46-11-403(1) being u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d h a v e b e e n d i s m i s s e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on t h e o r i g i n a l motion by Cardwell, and he should n o t have proceeded t o t r i a l on t h e c h a r g e s i n t h e amended information. S i n c e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d t o d i s m i s s t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n , we must do s o now. However, o r d e r i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e amended ------- ---------- ----- -------------- i n f o r m a t i o n , we do n o t mean t o p r e c l u d e -- t h e I t is unreasonable t o urge t h i s Court t o d i s r e g a r d its own language. C l e a r l y , it was our i n t e n t i o n t o l e a v e t h e door open t o r e t r i a l . Any ambiguity c r e a t e d because of t h e w o r d i n g o f t h e r e m i t t i t u r o r d e r is e l i m i n a t e d by r e f e r r i n g t o t h e above language. W e conclude, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t a new t r i a l was indeed g r a n t e d by t h e o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n , and w e a r e compelled by t h e p r e c e d e n t c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t t o hold t h a t h i s former jeopardy r i g h t s were n o t v i o l a t e d by h i s second t r i a l . Due P r o c e s s On A p r i l 23, 1980, Cardwell p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r an o r d e r d i s c h a r g i n g him from custody i n compliance w i t h s e c t i o n 46-20-707, MCA. I n a May 1, 1 9 8 0 , o r d e r t h i s C o u r t d i s c h a r g e d Cardwell from t h e s t a t e p r i s o n and d i r e c t e d t h a t he be r e t u r n e d t o G a l l a t i n C o u n t y f o r r e a r r a i g n m e n t on t h e o r i g i n a l c h a r g e s . Cardwell now o b j e c t s on t h e ground t h a t he was denied due p r o c e s s of law, c i t i n g t h e F i f t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 17, of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . Cardwell m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h i s Court d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o o r d e r him r e a r r a i g n e d u n d e r t h e o r i g i n a l c h a r g e s i n t h e absence of a new t r i a l o r d e r i n t h e o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n of t h i s Court. A s w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s double jeopardy argument, h i s i n i t i a l premise t h a t w e d i d n o t g r a n t a new t r i a l is erroneous. Only i f w e were persuaded of t h a t f a c t would C a r d w e l l ' s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m s h a v e a n y p o s s i b l e v a l i d i t y . W e a r e n o t s o persuaded. The s t a t u t e we a r e charged w i t h d i s r e g a r d i n g , s e c t i o n 46-20-707, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t , " [ i ] f a judgment a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t is r e v e r s e d w i t h o u t o r d e r i n g a new t r i a l , " t h i s Court must d i r e c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t be d i s c h a r g e d from custody. T h i s argument a g a i n urges t h i s Court t o d i s r e g a r d t h e language of t h e o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n s t a t i n g u n q u e s t i o n a b l y t h a t t h e r e v e r s a l of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment on t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n d i d n o t p r e c l u d e t h e r e f i l i n g of c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h i s defendant. I n l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t we d i d i n d e e d g r a n t a new t r i a l , o u r a c t i o n was beyond t h e parameters of s e c t i o n 46-20-707, MCA, and t h i s Court was n o t bound by its p r o v i s i o n s . Cardwell f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n had no e f f e c t s i n c e it became f u n c t u s o f f i c i o upon t h e f i l i n g of t h e amended information. 42 C.J.S. I n d i c t m e n t s and I n f o r m a t i o n s B 238 a t 1248. T h e r e f o r e , when t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n was d i s m i s s e d , t h e r e was no i n f o r m a t i o n t h e n e x i s t i n g and Cardwell was i l l e g a l l y d e t a i n e d . T h i s Court is o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s i n c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e d o c t r i n e and t h a t he m i s c o n s t r u e s t h e e f f e c t of t h i s C o u r t ' s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n . Although t h e q u e s t i o n is one of f i r s t impression f o r t h i s C o u r t , it is our o p i n i o n t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g s would become f u n c t u s o f f i c i o o n l y i f t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n were v a l i d . T h i s Court h e l d i n t h e f i r s t Cardwell o p i n i o n t h a t t h e amended p l e a d i n g was n o t v a l i d u n d e r t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . A s a r e s u l t , t h e i n v a l i d amendment could n o t r e n d e r t h e o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n f u n c t u s ----- o f f i c i o . T h i s r u l i n g a d o p t s t h e p o s i t i o n e n u n c i a t e d i n S t a t e v. Thompson (Mo. 1 9 6 5 ) , 392 S.W.2d 617, t h a t where an unauthorized o r o t h e r w i s e i m p r o p e r amended i n f o r m a t i o n i s q u a s h e d o r d i s m i s s e d , f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s may be had on t h e o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s C o u r t ' s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n simply wiped t h e s l a t e c l e a n i n D i s t r i c t Court from t h a t p o i n t i n time a t which we determined t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s amended i n f o r m a t i o n had n o t been p r o p e r l y f i l e d . The o r d e r had no e f f e c t on t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t o c c u r r e d p r i o r t o t h a t t i m e , i n c l u d i n g t h e f i l i n g of t h e o r i g i n a l information. A s a r e s u l t , t h i s Court p r o p e r l y o r d e r e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t be bound over t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o proceed from t h a t p o i n t . Speedy T r i a l C a r d w e l l c i t e s o u r d e c i s i o n i n S t a t e v . Harvey (19791, Mont. , 603 P.2d 661, 36 St.Rep. 2035, arguing t h a t when t h i s Court c o n s i d e r s t h e f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g t o speedy t r i a l g u a r a n t e e s w e should r e v e r s e h i s c o n v i c t i o n . The d e f e n d a n t a l l e g e s t h a t unnecessary d e l a y has d e p r i v e d him o f h i s r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l , and s p e c i f i c a l l y names t h i s Court a s t h e primary m a l i n g e r e r i n t h e r e s o l u t i o n of h i s f i r s t a p p e a l . Cardwell c l a i m s t h a t t h e 174 d a y s we used t o d e c i d e t h e c a s e was unreasonable and t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n should be r e v e r s e d . W e cannot a g r e e . Once a g a i n d e f e n d a n t ' s assignment of e r r o r h i n g e s upon a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e was no new t r i a l g r a n t e d by u s i n t h e p r e v i o u s Cardwell o p i n i o n . For t h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d above, w e f i n d t h a t w e g r a n t e d a new t r i a l by t h e language of t h e o p i n i o n , i f n o t by t h e r e m i t t i t u r o r d e r . T h i s being t h e c a s e , Cardwell is i n e r r o r when he a r g u e s t h a t t h e c r u c i a l time frame began upon h i s a r r e s t . W e adopted t h e p o s i t i o n i n S t a t e v. Sanders ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont. 209, 516 P.2d 372, t h a t , i n c a s e s o f r e t r i a l , it is t h e t i m e o f t h e r e m i t t i t u r which is c o n t r o l l i n g i n d e t e r m i n i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s r e l a t i v e speedy t r i a l r i g h t s . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e t i m e e l a p s e d between t h i s C o u r t ' s r e m i t t i t u r and d e f e n d a n t ' s second t r i a l was t h i r t y - t h r e e days. W e do n o t f i n d t h i s p e r i o d o f f e n s i v e t o C a r d w e l l ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s o r p r e j u d i c i a l t o h i s c a u s e . Compare S t a t e v. Harvey, s u p r a . W e a f f i r m . W e concur: