Title: STATE v KELLY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N O . 82-422 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1 9 8 3 STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , v s . JAMES PATRICK KELLY, ANTHEL L. BROWN, D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T h i r d 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 o f P o w e l l H o n o r a b l e Mark P . S u l l i v a n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: F o r A p p e l l a n t s : C . F. Mackay, Anaconda, Montana F o r R e s p o n d e n t : Hononable Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana Ted M i z n e r , County A t t o r n e y , Deer Lodge, Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 1 9 8 3 D e c i d e d : March 1 7 , 1 9 8 3 M r . J u s t i c e John C . Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendants were convicted i n a nonjury t r i a l of escape from t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . They w e r e sentenced by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Powell County, t o f o u r a d d i t i o n a l y e a r s i n p r i s o n , t o be served. consecutively. On appeal, defendants c l a i m they w e r e denied t h e r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l . The defendants escaped from t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n on February 15, 1-982, and were apprehended on February 20, 1982. On March 11, 1982, t h e Powell County Attorney f i l e d an information charging t h e defendants w i t h escape, and t h e defendants p l e d "not g u i l t y " on March 18, 1982. On t h a t same day, t h e defendants moved f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of Judge Boyd. Judge S u l l i v a n assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n on A p r i l 5 , 1982. On A p r i l 30, 1982, t h e defendants moved f o r a change of venue. A h e a r i n g was h e l d , and t h e motion was denied on J u l y 29, 1982. On August 16, 1982, Judge S u l l i v a n set a t r i a l d a t e f o r September 15, 1982. On September 13, 1982, t h e defendants moved t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k of a speedy t r i a l . The motion was denied. O n September 15, 1982, a s t i p u l a t i o n of f a c t s was submitted t o t h e District Court. On t h a t day, t h e defendants w e r e found g u i l t y of escape. From t h e d a t e t h a t t h e defendants w e r e a r r e s t e d u n t i l t h e i r t r i a l d a t e , 207 days elapsed. A p r e t r i a l d e l a y of 207 days i s s u f f i c i e n t l y long t o t r i g g e r a speedy t r i a l i n q u i r y and s h i f t t o t h e s t a t e t h e burden of e x p l a i n i n g t h e d e l a y and showing absences of p r e j u d i c e . S t a t e v. Freeman (1-979), 183 Mont. 334, 599 P.2d 368. In this instance, the State explained that a good portion of the delay was attributable to the defendants. By making motions for substitution of judge and change of venue, the defendants caused a delay of 108 day^. In such a case, although the defendants were merely asserting their procedural rights, the delay caused by the defendants does n.ot weigh against the State. Freeman, 599 P.2d at 371. If the delay caused by the defendants is deducted from the total delay of 207 days, only 99 days remain that could be attributable to the State. This is clearly within the permissible limits established by this Court. Cf. State v. Shurtliff (1980) , Mont . , 609 P.2d 303, 37 St.Rep. 713 (382 day delay, caused primarily by the defendant, was not unreasonable); State v. Nelson (1978), 178 Mont. 280, 583 P.2d 435 (8 month delay, caused by defendant's substitution of judges, and other motions, was not unreasonable). Since no evidence was presented to show that the defendants were prejudiced by the delay, and the delay attributed to the State was reasonable, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. We Concur: ~*&-J~*~& Chief Justice