Title: STATE v BUSH

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12559 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1974 THE STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, MRS. G L E N N BUSH, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Garnaas, Hall, Riley and Pinsoneault, Missoula, Montana J. Robert Riley argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. C. Weingartner, Deputy Attorney General, appeared, Helena, Montana Douglas G. Harkin, County Attorney, argued, Hamilton, Montana Submitted : January 17, 1974 Decided Cf p I t ; , Filed : - Clerk Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant was convicted i n the justice court of Ravalli County of assault in the third degree. On March 23, 1973, the justice court imposed a penalty consisting of a fine i n the amount of $150 and 60 days in the county j a i l . The jail sentence was suspended. Following the imposition of sentence defendant filed a written notice of appeal t o the d i s t r i c t court of the fourth judicial d i s t r i c t , i n and for the county of Ravalli. Defendant did not post an appeal bond. The Ravall i county attorney moved t o have the appeal dismissed on the grounds that defendant's failure to post a bond meant that the appeal had not been perfected. On M a y 11, 1973, the motion to dismiss was heard by the d i s t r i c t court, Judge E. Gardner Brownlee, presiding. The d i s t r i c t court dismissed defendant's appeal from the justice court decision for the reason that defendant did not furnish the required bond. Defendant appeals to this Court from the d i s t r i c t court's dismissal. The sole issue presented for review i s whether an appeal bond i s necessary t o perfect an appeal from the justice court to the d i s t r i c t court. Section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947,governs appeals from the justice of the peace court to the d i s t r i c t court and provides in part: "(b) The defendant may appeal to the d i s t r i c t court by giving written notice of his intention t o appeal within ten days (10) days ( s i c ) after judgment. ( c ) * * * I t shall be the duty of the defendant to per- fect the appeal. " The Revised Commission Comment to section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, indicates that the burden i s on the defendant to perfect an appeal from the justice court and specifically states: "This burden i s sustained when the defendant has posted the requisite bond * * *". This language indicates an intent to require bond as a part of perfecting an appeal from the justice court to the d i s t r i c t court. Furthermore, since the code was adopted as one comprehensive piece of legislation i t should be considered in its entirety to determine the effect of any one section. In the instant case the sections on bail are most relevant. Section 95-1109, R.C.M. 1947,adrnits t o bail as a matter of right a defendant who has been convicted i n justice court and who intends t o appeal. Section 95-1118, R.C.M. 1947,imposes as a condition of admission to bail after conviction the due prosecution of the appeal. The s t a t e main- tains that the legislature was thinking of section 95-1118, R.C.M. 1947~when i t enacted section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, thus giving the justice of the peace broad discretion in determining whether or not to require a bond on appeal. After reading the above-cited statutes together and the Revised Commission Comment, i t is this Court's opinion that an appeal from the justice court t o the d i s t r i c t court i s perfected when the defendant has posted the required bond, i n addition t o the other requirements. Since in this case defendant refused t o post a bond when requested by the justice of the peace, the appeal was not perfected, and the d i s t r i c t court properly dismissed the appeal on the s t a t e ' s motion. Accordingly, the d i s t r i c t court's dismissal of defendanys appeal is affirmed. &\ 1 . W e concur: