file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-743%20Opinion.htm

No. 00-743 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

2001 MT 198 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v.

CHARLENE BLACKWELL, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

Honorable Marge Johnson, Judge Presiding

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Carl B. Jensen, Jr., Public Defender's Office, Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent:

Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Ilka Becker, Assistant

Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Brant Light, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: April 26, 2001 

Decided: September 27, 2001

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-743%20Opinion.htm (1 of 4)1/19/2007 10:48:47 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-743%20Opinion.htm

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 On October 8, 1999, the State of Montana charged Charlene Blackwell by Information 

in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, with four traffic-related offenses, 

including felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). After rejecting an initial 

plea bargain offer, Blackwell ultimately pled guilty to the DUI offense, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, on the day set for trial. On March 6, 2000, the District Court entered an Order 

assessing Blackwell one-half of the costs of the jury, which included a clerk's salary for 

one day. The court sentenced Blackwell on September 11, 2000, and entered judgment 

accordingly. Blackwell appeals from the Order assessing costs. We reverse.

¶2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in assessing certain costs against 

Blackwell pursuant to a local court rule.

¶3 Local Rule 11E in the District Court states that, in the event "a jury trial setting is 

vacated pursuant to settlement or a motion within 5 days of trial, the parties or any of them 

may be assessed jury costs incurred, including a clerk's salary for one day." Over 

Blackwell's counsel's objections, the District Court assessed one-half of the total costs of 

$641.20 to the State and one-half to Blackwell in its March 6, 2000, Order. The 

subsequent Judgment of Conviction and Sentencing Order does not contain the 

assessment. 

¶4 Blackwell contends assessment of the jury costs is a penalty which could be rendered 

only in compliance with sentencing statutes, that sentencing statutes were not applied here 

and that, in any event, the sentencing statutes do not permit assessment of part of a clerk's 

salary. She also contends that the assessment of such costs against an indigent defendant, 

pursuant to the sentencing statutes, requires a hearing on ability to pay and that the District 

Court did not hold such a hearing. For these reasons, she contends the jury-related costs 

assessment portion of her sentence is illegal. 

¶5 The State argues, on the other hand, that this is not a sentencing issue because the 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-743%20Opinion.htm (2 of 4)1/19/2007 10:48:47 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-743%20Opinion.htm

District Court utilized Local Rule 11E, rather than the sentencing statutes, in assessing the 

costs. It further maintains that the imposition of costs was proper pursuant to the rule. We 

disagree.

¶6 "It is well-established that a district court's authority to impose sentences in criminal 

cases is defined and constrained by statute." State v. Nelson, 1998 MT 227, ¶ 24, 291 

Mont. 15, ¶ 24, 966 P.2d 133, ¶ 24 (citing State v. Wilson (1996), 279 Mont. 34, 37, 926 

P.2d 712, 714). Furthermore, "a district court has no power to impose a sentence in the 

absence of specific statutory authority." State v. Hatfield (1993), 256 Mont. 340, 346, 846 

P.2d 1025, 1029 (citations omitted). 

¶7 In the present case, it is undisputed that the District Court could have imposed "costs of 

jury service" as part of Blackwell's sentence, after a proper determination that Blackwell 

"is or will be able to pay them." See § 46-18-232(1) and (2), MCA. It does not appear, 

however, that § 46-18-232(1), MCA, would have authorized the sentencing court to 

include any portion of a clerk's salary in the costs imposed. Presumably, the clerks in 

Cascade County are employees who work regular work hours and days regardless of what 

duties are to be performed on a given day. Consequently, the salary for such a clerk would 

not be an expense "specifically incurred by the prosecution in connection with the 

proceedings against the defendant" under § 46-18-232(1), MCA.

¶8 In the situation before us the District Court did not apply § 46-18-232, MCA, at all. 

Instead, it relied on Local Rule 11E for the assessment of the costs at issue and did not 

include those costs in its Judgment of Conviction and Sentencing Order. In arguing that 

the court did not err, the State necessarily posits that district courts may adopt whatever 

local rules they may desire which impose penalties on a criminal defendant-without regard 

to whether they are authorized by, or consistent with, sentencing statutes-and avoid both 

statutory and jurisprudential constraints on their sentencing authority by merely imposing 

such penalties via separate order in advance of the judgment and sentence in a case. Not 

surprisingly, perhaps, the State cites to no authority for this novel proposition.

¶9 On the basis of the facts, the record and the parties' arguments in the present case, we 

conclude the District Court erred in assessing costs against Blackwell in its March 6, 2000, 

Order, pursuant to Local Rule 11E. As a result, we further conclude that Order must be, 

and is hereby, vacated. 

¶10 Reversed.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-743%20Opinion.htm (3 of 4)1/19/2007 10:48:47 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-743%20Opinion.htm

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

We concur: 

/S/ JIM RICE

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ JIM REGNIER

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-743%20Opinion.htm (4 of 4)1/19/2007 10:48:47 AM