Title: City of Billings ex rel Friedt v

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

FILED
May 142008
No. OP 08.0181
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,

“wn FILED

CITY OF BILLINGS, ex rel MAY 14 2008
a E
THRISTINA E. FRIEDT, od Smith
oF THe BUPRENE COURT

Relator, CLES OF MONTANA

v OPINION AND ORDER

BILLINGS MUNICIPAL COURT,
‘The Honorable Mary Jane Knisely, Presiding,

Respondent

‘On April 9,2008, counsel for relator Christina E. Friedt filed an Application for Writ
of Supervisory Control and To Stay Lower Court Proceedings. She alleged that the Billings
‘Municipal Court had made a mistake of law causing a gross injustice in ordering Friedt’s
guilty pleas and sentence withdrawn, and that allowing the Municipal Court proceedings to
continue would be fundamentally unfair and prejudicial. On April 16, we stayed the
‘Municipal Court proceedings pending further order from this Court. We also ordered the
Office ofthe Billings City Attomey, and permitted the Judge ofthe Billings Municipal Court,
to file a summary response pursuant to MR. App. P. 14(7)(b). Deputy City Attomey Curt
LL. Bevolden timely filed a summary response on April 29.

{2 The relevant facts are undisputed. In December of 2007, Friedt was cited for the

 

offenses of astop sign viol

 

jon, failing to carry proof of or exhibit insurance in vehicle (the

“no insurance” charge) and failing to have her driver's license in her immediate possession.
‘At her arraignment in Municipal Court on January 17, 2008, Friedt responded “no” when
asked if she wished to consult an attorney, pled guilty to the stop sign violation and pled not
‘guilty to the “no insurance” charge. The Municipal Court sentenced Friedt by imposing a
fine of $50 plus a surcharge on the stop sign charge, dismissed the driver's license charge
ith a warning and set an omnibus hearing on the “no insurance” charge.

{3 On February 12, 2008, Friedt appeared at the omnibus hearing and pled guilty to the
“no insurance” charge, The Municipal Court sentenced her to six months in jail, all
suspended on the condition that she pay a $500 fine plus surcharge. The court allowed Friedt
to perform community service in lieu ofthe fine

{4 On February 28, 2008, the Municipal Court, acting sua sponte, entered an order
withdrawing Friedt’s guilty pleas tothe stop sign violation and the “no insurance” charge.
‘The court noted that, on February 15, it had received an e-mail from Bevolden and, on
February 20, had received a packet of correspondence from Moira Murphy D'Alton, the
owner of a fence allegedly damaged during the events leading to Friedt’s citations. The
subject of both Bevolden’s ex parte e-mail and D'Alton’s correspondence packet was
D'Alton’s request for restitution for the damaged fence, The correspondence packet
indicated D’Alton first communicated her request to Bevolden on December 31, 2007, and
had written letters tothe Billings Police Department, Bevolden and the Municipal Court from
December of 2007 through February of 2008, Observing the address on D’Alton’s letters to
the Municipal Court was incorrect, the court determined after consulting with court

‘employees that the court had not received D Alton’s previous letters, and restitution had not
been requested by the prosecutor,

5 The Municipal Court noted it did not have any factual information regarding a
potential restitution claim when Friedt entered her guilty pleas at the arraignment and
‘omnibus hearing, and reasoned that § 46-18-201(5), MCA, requires a court to impose

restitution if vi

 

im has sustained a pecuniary loss. The court concluded that, because no
‘mutual discovery regarding the restitution claim had been afforded to Friedt before either of

her guilty pleas, the court “[could not) find that the Defendant entered into a constitutionally

 

intelligent, knowing, voluntary plea of Guilty.” The court further reasoned that Friedt
‘was not afforded her right to counsel at her arraignment on the “no insurance” charge. The
Municipal Court ordered that Friedt’s guilty pleas be withdrawn, appointed defense counsel,
and set an omnibus hearing, which apparently occurred on April 8, 2008.

{6 _Friedt applied to this Court for a writ of supervisory control on April 9, 2008, and
filed her affidavit in support. Friedt maintains she knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily
pled guilty to the two offenses. She also points to her written and signed waivers of rights
stating she was advised that the court would appoint counsel for her if she could not afford an

attorney, and that she “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive{d] [het] right to be

 

represented by an attorney.” Friedt further asserts the Municipal Court's jurisdiction ended
when it sentenced her. In this regard, she relies primarily on State ex rel. Torres v, District

Court, 265 Mont. 445, 450, 877 P.24 1008, 1011 (1994) which states, among other things,

 

that “once a valid sentence has been pronounced, the court loses jurisdiction to vacate or

‘modify the sentence, except as otherwise provided by statute." See also State v. Hirt, 2008
MT 285, 4 19, 329 Mont. 267, § 19, 124 P.3d 147, § 19; State v. Evert, 2004 MT 178, 4 14,
322 Mont. 105, § 14, 93 P.3d 1254, § 14, Friedt argues that the Municipal Court is
proceeding under a mistake of law, which would result in a gross injustice and unnecessary
expenditures of time and resources ifshe were required to stand trial on charges to which she
has pled guilty and on which she has been sentenced. She further asserts it would be

fundamentally unfair and prejudicial to foree her to face further proceedings ifthe Municipal

 

Court lacks jurisdiction, Friedt asks this Court to exercise its supervisory control jurisdiction
and remand with instructions to vacate the February 28, 2008, order.

{7 In his summary response, Bevolden asserts that, because he was distracted at the
February 12 omnibus hearing by “activity” including negotiations with several defendants
and simultaneous proceedings in two courtrooms, he failed to raise any issue regarding
restitution before Friedt was sentenced. He argues, however, that the Municipal Court had
Jurisdiction after imposing sentence under § 46-16-702, MCA, which provides in part that,
following a verdict or finding of guilty, a court may grant a defendant a new trial without a

‘motion if required in the interest of justice. He maintains the “interest of justice” to the

 

victim and the mandatory restitution provision in § 46-18-201(5), MCA, required the
Municipal Court to remedy the situation sua sponte.

18 _Bevolden’s reliance on the provision for granting a new trial in § 46-16-702, MCA. is
‘misplaced. “The granting of a new trial places the parties in the same position asi there had
been no tral.” Section 46-16-701, MCA. Here, no trial occurred, Moreover, the clear intent

of the § 46-16-702, MCA, language is to grant a defendant a new tial if the interests of
Justice would be served. Nothing in the statute authorizes a new proceeding to benefit an

 

alleged victim or a prosecutor who failed to timely raise a sentencing matter. We conclude
§ 46-16-702, MCA, has no application here.
19 We observe that § 46-16-105(2), MCA, provides that “[a]t any time before judgment

‘or, except when a claim of innocence is supported by evidence of a fundamental:

 

iscariage
of justice, within 1 year after judgment becomes final, the court may, for good cause shown,
‘permit the plea of guilty or nolo contendere to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty

substituted.” Nothing in the pl

 

language of § 46-16-105(2), MCA, authorizes a court, in
essence, to forcibly withdraw a defendant's plea sua sponte under any circumstance.

{10 Nor can we agree with the Municipal Court's possible reliance on §§ 46-12-
210(1XaX(iv) and (1}(b), MCA, which provide, respectively, that a court must determine
before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere that the defendant understands the
possibility of restitution “when applicable,” and the right to counsel. ‘The Municipal Court
apparently interpreted § 46-12-210(1(a)(iv), MCA, as rendering a plea invalid if the court
has failed to advise the defendant of potential restitution claims that the prosecution has
failed to timely and properly assert—an interpretation we reject. Regarding advice of the
right to counsel under § 46-12-210(1}(b), MCA, the audio record confirms thatthe Municipal
‘Court failed to advise Friedt orally that she had the right to appointed counsel ifshe could not
afford an attomey—instead asking only if Friedt wished to speak with an attomey at her
January 17 arraignment and saying nothing regarding counsel atthe February 12 hearing, As

provided in § 46-12-210(2), MCA, however, the requirements for ascertaining a defendants
 

Understanding of the matters set forth in §46-12-210(1), MCA, “may be accomplished by the
defendant filing a written acknowledgment of the informationf.J” Here, Friedt executed a

“itten waiver of rights, including her right to appointed counsel, with respect to each of her

 

Builty pleas. Moreover, Friedt maintains her guilty pleas were knowing, voluntary and

intelligent. We conclude, based on the undisputed facts, t

 

it the Municipal Court erred in
determining otherwise.

‘TLL Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy and is sometimes justified when
"urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when the
«case involves purely legal questions, and when one or more of the Following circumstances
«exist: (a) the other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice;
(b) constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved; (c) the other court has granted
or denied a motion for substitution of a judge in a eriminal case. M. R. App. P. 14(3).

Applying these standards, we conclude the Municipal Court's sua sponte order withdrawing

 

Friedt’s gui

 

pleas—contrary to the undisputed facts of record and Fried’s characterization

of her pleas—constitutes a mistake of law causing a gross injustice. Moreover, we conclude
these unique facts render the normal appeal process inadequate,

‘112. We observe that this case does not present an issue of whether the sentence here may
be illegal. Likewise, it does not involve any remedies available to a prosecutor in the event
an illegal sentence is imposed.

{13 IT IS ORDERED that Friedt’s application for a writ of supervisory control is

GRANTED.
OO ——————

‘$16 ITISFURTHER ORDERED that this case is. Temanded to the Municipal Court with

instructions to vacate the February 28, 2008, order Withdrawing Friedt’s guilty pleas

MS The Clerk is directed 10 mail copies of this order to all ‘counsel of record, to the Clerk

of the Billings Municipal Court, and to the residing judge

i
DATED this_\5""Gay of May, 2008,

Tice Se t
We concur:

 
Justice James C. Nelson concurs,
$16 Teoncur with all that is sa

In my view, there was nothing ilk

 

‘equested—and setting an omnibus hearing. 1 was shocked at the prosecutor's and
cour's handling of this mater, While the Billings Municipal Court may be very busy,
‘he “activity” of the omnibus hearings, as the prosecutor describes it, is hardly the fault—
the problem—of defendants appearing before the court If the prosecutor makes
Imistakes because of being distracted by negotiations or because hhe was in another
<ounoom, then the consequences of his ertor—or the system's failure—should not fall
‘onthe defendant. Friedt came to court as ordered; she entered a lawful plea after being
advised of her rights; she was legally sentenced. She should not, again, be required to
‘epeat this process to undo alleged mistakes made by the State in the first go-around, If

the victim is owed damages, then she bas civil remedies against Friedt. With that caveat,

Teoncur.

fo

Justice
\ Track

Page | of

oa aes hee

 

D atomey ooo
Frat, Christine €.:Petitener

Jeanne titer Waiker
‘Atomey at Lam
208. 29th Street, sute 223

‘tings s3t08
1D Aitomey era/e Cuts. Bevolden
DGS Municpal Cout, Thrteenth scl Dist: Attomey st Law
Respondent waco Pron S378
Bilings MT 39103
D Hon. Mary Jane Knisely
Other 220% a7tst
Bitings ir setox
Thiteenth Judi Dleticttitngs Municipal
O cner coure

‘nap:/jud.ems.mt gov/etrack/distribution/masterDistributionL.ist.doesNameID=12425 act

_ — mi Ai

1472008