Title: STATE v CRANE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-306 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, VS . ROBERT V. CRANE, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Lewis and Clark Honorable Nat Allen, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Charles A. Graveley, County Attorney, Helena, Montana For Respondent: W i l l i a m D e e Morris, Missoula, Montana .JAN 2 1 1982 F i l e d . Submitted on b r i e f s : September 3 , 1981 Decided : JAW 2 1 1 3 8 2 Clerk Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. The State of Montana appeals a First Judicial Dis- trict decision granting defendant Robert Crane habeas corpus and releasing him from jail after serving forty-four days of his 121-day sentence. On July 7, 1978, the Montana Department of Revenue filed a complaint against Robert Crane, d/b/a Crane's Fabrics, for violation of section 84-2401, R.C.M. 1947 (now section 15-57-102, PICA), operating a store without a valid retail license. Such violation is a misdemeanor under section 84-2411, R.C.M. 1947 (now section 15-57-110, MCA). Crane was tried and convicted by a six-person jury on December 13, 1978. On January 4, 1979, he was fined $1,200, of which $1,000 would be suspended if Crane purchased the $11.00 license within twelve days. On January 12, 1979, Crane filed a notice of appeal with the Justice of the Peace, but he failed to have the court records transferred to the District Court. The Depart- ment of Revenue moved to revoke the suspended sentence. The Justice of the Peace gave Crane until July 2, 1979, to pay the entire $1,200 fine or face a 121-day jail sentence ($10 a day, plus one day for contempt). No fine was paid, and the Department of Revenue petitioned the Justice of the Peace to set a date for Crane to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. A show cause hearing was held on February 6, 1981, and on February 9, 1981, Crane was ordered to pay the fine by February 15, 1981, or go to jail. On February 16, 1981, Crane appeared at the Lewis and Clark County jail and began serving his 121-day sentence. Crane petitioned the First Judicial District Court f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i b u t was g r a n t e d a w r i t of habeas corpus. The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t $200, n o t $1,200, was t h e proper f i n e and r e l e a s e d Crane from j a i l , a s he had a l r e a d y served f o r t y - f o u r days, which a t $10 a day f a r exceeded t h e $200 f i n e . The S t a t e o f Montana a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . Throughout t h i s c a s e Crane h a s claimed t h a t he t r a n s - f e r r e d a l l h i s p r o p e r t y t o t h e Freedom Church, which he founded i n 1976 and which m e t a t t h e " C r a n e ' s F a b r i c s " s t o r e u n t i l it burned. H e a l s o c l a i m s he h a s t a k e n vows of p o v e r t y and is t h u s i n d i g e n t . T h e r e f o r e , he c l a i m s he can- n o t a f f o r d t o pay t a x e s , f i n e s or a t t o r n e y f e e s . He h a s proceeded p r o s e w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of some v o l u n t a r y l e g a l a s s i s t a n c e on h i s b r i e f f o r t h i s a p p e a l . Regardless of whether Crane h a s t h e money, it is t h e Freedom Church's p o s i t i o n , and h i s p o s i t i o n , t h a t t h e r e t a i l l i c e n s e t a x is u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , and Crane t h e r e f o r e r e f u s e s t o pay it. Four i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on appeal: (1) Did t h e d e f e n d a n t p r o p e r l y p e r f e c t h i s a p p e a l t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court? ( 2 ) Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i ? ( 3 ) Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o g r a n t a w r i t of habeas corpus? ( 4 ) Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n reducing t h e f i n e from $1,200 t o $200? The f i r s t i s s u e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l is whether t h e d e f e n d a n t p r o p e r l y p e r f e c t e d h i s a p p e a l t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court. W e f i n d t h a t he d i d n o t . The p e r t i n e n t Montana s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 95-2009, K.C.M. 1947 (now s e c t i o n 46-17-311, MCA), p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : " ( 2 ) The d e f e n d a n t may a p p e a l t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t by g i v i n g w r i t t e n n o t i c e of h i s i n t e n - t i o n t o a p p e a l w i t h i n 10 days a f t e r judgment. "(3) Within 30 days, the entire record of the justice or police court proceedings must be transferred to the district court or the appeal must be dismissed. It is the duty of the defendant to perfect the appeal." ( Em- phasis added. ) Although the defendant filed the necessary written notice, he did not have the court records transferred to the District Court within thirty days or within a forty-five-day extension. As the above statute provides, and as this Court has strictly construed, it is the defendant's duty to per- fect the appeal. State v. Main (1981), Mont . , 623 P.2d 1382, 1383-1384, 38 St.Rep. 205 (appeal dismissed because court records were not properly transferred); State ex rel. Ross v. Mallory (1979), - Mont. - , 601 P.2d 385, 385-386, 36 St.Rep. 1717 (written appeal given to wrong court); State v. Mortenson (1978), 175 Mont. 403, 574 P.2d 581, 582 (no written appeal within ten days of oral judg- ment); State v. Bush (1974), 164 Mont. 81, 518 P.2d 1406, 1407 (appeal bond was not posted). Thus, the defendant waived his appeal by failing to perfect it. The second issue presented on appeal is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to grant a writ of cer- tiorari. We hold that it did not. Montana statute, section 93-9002, R.C.M. 1947 (now section 27-25-101 et seq., MCA), provides that certiorari may be granted "by the district court . . . [I] when an inferior tribunal . . . has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal . . . and [2] there is no appeal, [3] nor, in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy." See also, Matter of DeWar (1976), 169 Mont. 437, 548 P.2d 149, 153. If any one of the three necessary elements is missing, certiorari cannot be granted. State v. District Court (1948), 122 Mont. 61, 198 P.2d 761, 765. There has been no evidence presented, or authority cited, indicating that the Justice of the Peace Court ex- ceeded its jurisdiction. Appeal, which is a "plain, speedy, and adequate remedy," was available but was not perfected. Thus, all three elements necessary for the District Court to grant certiorari are missing, and the District Court had no jurisdiction to grant certiorari. See, e.g., McVay v. McVay (1954), 128 Mont. 31, 270 P.2d 393, 395 (no certiorari available when appeal waived); State v. District Court (1952), 125 Mont. 481, 240 P.2d 854, 861 (no certiorari granted if appeal available); White v. Corbett (1935), 101 Mont. 1, 52 P.2d 156, 157 (no certiorari granted if appeal available). The third issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus. We hold that it did not. Montana statute clearly outlines the prerequisites for a writ of habeas corpus. Requirements which have not been met in the instant case include: (1) application for writ, section 46-22-201, MCA; (2) verification by oath or affirmation, section 46-22-201, MCA; (3) service to county attorney, section 46-22-205, MCA; (4) hearing, section 46- 22-304, MCA; and (4) production of evidence, section 46-22- 305, MCA. At the defendant's hearing on his application for writ of certiorari, the court decided to treat the appli- cation as one for habeas corpus. As previously noted, the defendant here failed to properly prepare a petition for habeas corpus, and the District Court did not have juris- diction to consider such a writ. See, Stubben v. Flathead Cty. Dept. of Public Welfare (1976), 171 Mont. 111, 556 P.2d 904. However, this Court or the District Court will liberally construe a jailed pro se defendant's petition for relief. ". . . we realize there will be many cases where prisoners may have good grounds for petitioning this Court for relief and are unable to secure the assistance of an attor- ney because of their financial condition, or otherwise. In those instances we give every reasonable inference that we can to such petitions to see whether the same are suffi- cient to justify a hearing upon the issues raised, if any." Brake v. State (Okl. 1963), 380 P.2d 95, 96. The facts determined by the District Court suggest that there was a proper basis for a petition of habeas corpus if one had been properly prepared and served. The fourth issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court erred in reducing the fine from $1,200 to $200. Because of our holding in this case, we need not address this issue. We reverse and remand this matter to the District Court with directions that the matter be held in abeyance for a period of thirty days during which time the petitioner shall prepare, serve and submit a properly prepared petition in habeas corpus for the court's consideration.