D A 0 9

- 0 5 1 6



### I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F M O N T A N A

2 0 1 0 M T 1 9 4 N

S T A T E O F M O N T A

N A

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l e e

,

v

.

N I E L K E L L Y M U L L A R K

E Y

,

D e f e n d a n t a n d A

p p e l l a n t

.

A P P E A L F R O M : D i s t r i c t C o u r t 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 a n d F o r t

h e C o u n t y o f L e w i s a n d C l a r k

, C a u s e N o

. C D C 2 0 0 8

- 1 3 6

H o n o r a b l e K a t

h y S e e l e y

, P r e s i d i

n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

E l i M

. P a r k e r

, O f

f i c e o f t h e S t a t e P u b l i c D e f e n d e r ; M i s s o u l a

, M o n t a n a

J o s l y n H u n t

, C h i e f A

p p e l l a t e D e f

e n d e r ; E i l e e n L a r k i n

, A s s i s t a n t

A p p e l l a t e D e f e n d e r ; H e l e n a

, M o n

t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

S t e v e B u l l o c k

, M o n t a n a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; J o n a t

h a n M

. K r a u s s

, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

L e o J

. G a l l a g

h e r

, L e w i s a n d C l a r k C o u n t y A t t o r n e y ; M e l i s s a B r o c h

, D e p u t y C o u

n t y A t t o r n e y ; H e l e

n a

, M o n t a

n a

S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f

s : J u l y 1 4

, 2 0 1 0

D e c i d e d : A

u g u s t 3 1

, 2 0 1 0

F i l e d :

_ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k August 31 20102

Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 P u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n I

, P a r a g r a p h 3 ( d )

, M o n

t a n a S u p r e m e C o u r t 1 9 9 6 I

n t e r n a l

O p e r a t i n g R

u l e s

, a s a m e n d e d i n 2 0 0 6

, t h e f o l l o w i n g m e m o r a n d u m d e c i s i o n s h a l l n o t b e

c i t e d a s p r e c e d e n t

. I

t s h a l l b e f

i l e d a s a p u b l i c d o c

u m e n t w i t h t h e C l e r k o f t h e S u p r e m e

C o u r t

, a n d i t s c a s e t i t l e

, S u p r e m e C o u r t c a u s e n

u m b e r

, a n d d i s p o s i t i o n s h a l l b e i n c l u d e d

in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and

Montana Reports.

¶ 2 A L e w i s a n d C l a r k C o u n t y j u r y c o n v i c t e d N e i l M u l l a r k e y f o r t h r e e c o u n t s o f

a s s a u l t o n a p e a c e o f

f i c e r a n d o n e c o u n

t o f o b s t r

u c t i n g a p e a c e o f

f i c e r

. M u l l a r k e y

a p p e a l s a n d a r g

u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d h a v e d i s m i s s e d t h e c h a r g

e s b e c a u s e h i s

c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e M o n t a

n a S t a t e H o s p i t a l ( M S H ) ( f

o r a p s y c h o l o g

i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n )

v i o l a t e d s t a t

u t o r y t i m e l i m

i t s a n d

, t h e r e f

o r e

, d u e p r o c e s s

. 1

¶ 3 T h e f

a c t s u n d e r l y i n g M u l l a r k e y ’ s a r r e s t a n d s u b s e q u e n t c o n v i c t i o n a r e n o t c e n t r a

l

t o t h e i s s u e o n a p p e a

l a n d m a y b e b r i e f

l y s u m m a r i z e d

. M u l l a r k e y l a y i n t h e b e d o f h i s

p i c k u p

, w h i c h w a s p a r k e d a t a H e l e n a

- a r e a g a s s t a t i o n

. D u e t o a

n e a r l i e r i n c i d e n

t

, t h e g a s

s t a t i o n m a n a g

e r w a n t e d h i m t o l e a v

e a n d h a d c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e

. F o u r o f f i c e r s r e s p o n d e d

,

o n e i m m e d i a t e l y d r e w h i s g

u n a n d p l a c e d i t b e h i n d h i s b a c k

. M u l l a r k e y t h e n d r e w a

p o c k e t k n i f e a n d o p e

n e d t h e b l a

d e

. T h e o f

f i c e r s

, n o t i c i n g t h e k

n i f e

, i m m e d i a t e l y a n d

r e p e a t e d l y t a s e d M u l l a r k e y

, c a u s i n g h i m t o d r o p t h e k n i f e

. T h e y a r r e s t e d h i m

. T h e S t a t e

1 M u l l a r k e y r a i s e d t h r e e o t h e r i s s u e s i n h i s o p e n i

n g b r i e f t h a t h e e x p r e s s l

y w i t h d r e w i n h i s r e p l y

b r i e f

.3

subsequently charged Mullarkey with three counts of assault on a peace officer and one

count of obstruction of a peace officer.

¶ 4 P r i o r t o t r i a l

, M u l l a r k e y w a s e v a l u a t e d b y a c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t

, t o d e t e r m i n e

w h e t h e r h e w a s c o m

p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l

. T h e p s y c h o l o g i s t d i d n o t o f

f e r a n o p i n i o n a s t o

whether Mullarkey was fit to proceed an d recommended that he be transferred to MSH

for further proceedings. M u l l a r k e y ’ s c o u n s e l s u b s e q u e n t l y m o v e d t h e c o u r t p u r s u a n

t t o

§ 46

- 14

- 221, MCA, to order a competency examination at MSH. 2 C o n s i s t e n t w i t h

d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ’ s r e q u e s t

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e e x a m i n a t i o n p u r s u a n

t t o § 4 6

-

1 4

- 2 2 1

, M C A

. M u l l a r k e y w a s t r a n s p o r t e d t o M S H f o r e x a m i n a t i o n

. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f

t e r

,

M u l l a r k e y ’ s c o u n s e l m o v e d t o c o n t i n

u e t h e t r i a l d a

t e o n a c c o u n

t o f t h e h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n

,

n o t i n g h i s e x

p e c t a t i o n t

h a t “ D e f e n d a n t w i l l remain hospitalized for up to 90 days.”

¶ 5 T h e M S H d o c t o r s f i l e d a r e p o r t

, c o n c l u d i n g t h a t M u l l a r k e y w a s u n f i t t o p r o c e e d t o

t r i a l

. H o w e v

e r

, a f t e r a h e a r i n g a t w

h i c h M u l l a r k e y t e s t i f

i e d t o h i s o w

n f i t n e s s

, t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t M u l l a r k e y w a s f

i t t o p r o c e e d t o t r i a l a

n d o r d e r e d h i m t o b e

t r a n s p o r t e d b a c k t o t h e L e w i s a n d C l a r k C o u n t y J a i l

. A l l t o l d

, M

u l l a r k e y s p e n t 9 9 d a y s a t

M S H

. 3

2 M u l l a r k e y ’ s c o u n s e l a

p p a r e n t l y i n t e n d e d t o c i

t e § 4 6

- 1 4

- 2 0 2 ( 2 )

, M C A

, w h i c h p r o v i d e s f o r

f i t n e s s e x a m i

n a t i o n s “ f

o r a p e r i o d n o t e x c e e d i n g 6 0 d a y s o r a l o n g e r p e r i o d t h a t t h e c o u r t

d e t e r m i n e s t o b e n e c e s s a r

y

. ” T a c i

t l y a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h i s m ix

- u p

, M u l l a r k e y ’ s c o u n s e l

e v e n t u a l l y m o v e d ( a s w e n o t e l a t e r ) t o d i s m i s s o n t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t f

o l l o w

t h e p r o c e d

u r e o u t l i n e d i n § 4 6

- 1 4

- 2 0 2 ( 2 )

, M C A

. 3 He was admitted to MSH o n J u l y 3 0

, 2 0 0 8

, a n d t h e L e w i s a n d C l a r k C o u n t y S h e r i f

f ’ s O f f i c e

r e t u r n e d h i m t o H e l e n a o n N o v e m

b e r 5

, 2 0 0 8

, t o a t t e n d t h e h e a r i n g o n h i s f

i t n e s s t o p r o c e e d

. T h e D e f e n s e t a l l i e s 1 0 3 d a y s

, w h i l e t h e S t a t e t a l l i e s 9 8

.4

¶ 6 Approximately one month after the court determined him to be fit for trial,

Mullarkey moved to dismiss the charges a gainst him. Mullarkey premised his motion on

§ 46

- 14

- 2 0 2 ( 2 )

, M C A

, w h i c h l i m i t s t h e p e r i o d o f a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o m m i t m e n t t o

M S H f o r a f i t n e s s e x a m i n a t i o n t o 6 0 d a y s u n l e s s a d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t m o r e

t i m e i s n e e d e d

. M u l l a r k e y a r g u e d t h a t his commitment at MSH in excess of the

statutorily permitted 60 days violated his right to due process, requiring dismissal. In

s u p p o r t o f t h i s a r g u m e n t

, M u l l a r k e y c i t e d S t a t e v

. T i s o n , 2003 MT 342, 318 Mont. 465,

81 P.3d 471.

¶ 7 I n r e s p o n s e

, t

h e S t a t e c o n c e d e d t h a

t M u l l a r k e y h a d b e e n c o m m i t t e d a t M S H i n

e x c e s s o f s t a t u t o r i l y a l l o w e d l i m i t s

. H o w e v e r

, t h e S t a t e a r g

u e d t h a t t h i s e x c e s s p e r i o d o f

commitment was reasonable because Mullarkey did not cooperate with MSH personnel

who conducted the examination. The refore, the commitment d i d n o t v i o l a t e M u l l a r k e y ’ s

r i g h t t o d u e p r

o c e s s

. T h e S t a t e a l s o s u g g e s t e d t h a t M u l l a r k e y w a s a t f a u l t f o r n o t

c h a l l e n g i n g t h e l e n g

t h o f h i s c o m m

i t m e n t u n t i l h e w a s r e l e a s e d f

r o m M S H and filed his

motion to dismiss.

¶ 8 The District Cou r t d e n i e d M u l l a r k e y ’ s m o t i o n

. T h e c o u r t d i s t i n g u i s h e d T i s o n as

b e i n g l i m i t e d t o c a s e s w

h e n a c r i m

i n a l d e f e n d a n t i s c o m

m i t t e d t o M S H u n d e r § 4 6

- 1 4

-

2 2 1 ( 3 )

, M C A

, a f

t e r b e i n g d e t e r m

i n e d t o b e u

n f i t

.

¶ 9 A L e w i s a n d C l a r k C o u n t y j u r y s u b s e q u e n

t l y c o n v i c t e d M u l l a r k e y o n a

l l c o u n t s

a n d t h e c o u r

t s e n t e n c e d h i m

. M u l l a r k e y a p p e a l s t h e d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

.

¶ 1 0 W e r e v i e w d e n o v o a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s r

u l i n g o n a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i n a c r i m i n a l

c a s e

. State v. Giddings

, 2 0 0 9 M T 6 1

, ¶ 4 2

, 3 4 9 M o n t

. 3 4 7

, 2 0 8 P

. 3 d 3 6 3

.5

¶ 1 1 I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t

h a t “ a p e r s o n c h a r g

e d b y a S t a t e w i t h a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e w h o i s

c o m m i t t e d s o l e l y o n a c c o u n

t o f h i s i n c a p a c i t y t o p r o c e e d t o t r i a l c a n n o t b e h e l d m o r e

t h a n t h e r e a s o n a

b l e p e r i o d o f t i m e n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a s u b s t a n tial

p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t h e w i l l a t

t a i n t h a t c a p a c i t y i n t h e f

o r e s e e a b l e f

u t u r e

. ” J a c k s o n v

. I n d

. ,

406 U.S. 715, 738, 92 S. Ct. 1845, 1858 (1972). Here, Mullarkey’s counsel initially

support ed Mullarkey’s commitment for 90 days. Thus, the question is wheth er

M u l l a r k e y ’ s c o m m i t m e n t f o r t h e n i n e e x t r a d a y s w a s s o u n r e a s o n a b l e a s t o o f f e n d d u e

p r o c e s s

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t i t d o e s n o t

. T h e r e p o r t o f t h e M S H d o c t o r s i n d i c a t e s t h a t

Mullarkey’s uncooperativeness hampered the doctors’ examination of him. 4 I n l i g h t o f

t h i s

, w e c o n c l u d e t

h a t M u l l a r k e y ’ s s h o r t p e r i o d o f c o m m i t m e n t b e y o n d t

h e a m o u n

t o f

t i m e r e c o m m e n d e d b y h i s c o u n s e l w a s n o t u

n r e a s o n a b l e

. 5

4 T h e r e p o r t r e a d s i n p a r t :

H e [ M u l l a r

k e y ] h a s b e e n o n l

y m i n i m a l l y c o o p e r a t i

v e w i t h e f f o r t s t o e l i c i

t

p e r s o n a l i

n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h m i g h t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e e v a l

u a t i o n p r o c e s s

. H e h a s

c o n s i s t e n t l

y r e f u s e d t o s i g n r e l e a s e s o f i

n f o r m a t i o n t o a l l o w s t a f

f t o o b t a i

n

b a c k g r o u n d i

n f o r m a t i o n f r o m f r i e n d s a n d f

a m i l y m e m b e r s

. H e r e f

u s e d t o s i g n h i s

t r e a t m e n t p l a n

. H e r e f

u s e d t o s i g n a s i

m p l e d o c u m e

n t a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t h e h a d

been advised of his rights. He has refused recommended medical lab testing, a

recommended CAT sca n, and recommended medication “ because I’m here

i l l e g a l l y

. ” H e h a s s t e a d f

a s t l y m a i n t a i n e d t h a t h e i s n o t m e n t a l l y i l l a n d w o u l d

h a v e n o l e g a l p r o b l e m s i f h e c o u l d a f f o r d t o p a y f

o r a b e t t e r l a w y e r

. 5 W e r e j e c t t h e S t a t e ’ s a r g

u m e n t t h a t M u l l a r k e y d i d n o t t i m e l y r a i s e h i s o b

j e c t i o n

. T

h e S t a t e

c i t e s n o a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s p r o p o s i

t i o n

, m e r e l

y i t s o w n s a y

- s o

. B e c a

u s e M u l l a r k e y f

i l e d h i s

m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s w i

t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t a n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t r u l e d o n t h e m o t i o n

, M u l l a r k e y

i s n o t a s k i

n g t h i s C o u r

t t o a d d r e s s a n i s s u e o n w h i c h t h e D i strict Court did not have the

o p p o r t u n i t y t o r u l e

. S e e D

. R

. F

o u r B e a t A l l

i a n c e

, L L C v

. S i e r

r a P r o d

. C o

. , 2 0 0 9 M T 3 1 9

, ¶ 4 3

, 3 5 2 M o n t

. 4 3 5

, 2 1 8 P

. 3 d 8 2 7 ( “ I t i s a w e l l

- e s t a b l i s h e d p r i

n c i p l e o f M o n t a n a l a w t h a t c l a i m e d

e r r o r s m u s t g e n e r a l l

y b e r a i s e d i

n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t b e f o r e t h i s C o u r

t w i l l c o n s i d e r t h e m o n

a p p e a l

, b e c a

u s e i t i s f u n d a m e n t a l l

y u n f a i r t o f a u l t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t f o r f a i l i n g t o r u l e o n a n i s s u e

i t d i d n o t h a v e t h e o p p o r

t u n i t y t o c o n s i d e r

. ” )

. A b s e n t a n y a u t h o r i t y i n s t a t u t e o r p r e c e d e n t

, w e6

¶ 1 2 W e h a v

e d e c i d e d t o d e t e r m

i n e t h i s c a s e p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n I

, P a r a g r a p h 3 ( d ) o f

o u r 1 9 9 6 I

n t e r n a l O p e r a t i n g R

u l e s

, a s a m e n d e d i n 2 0 0 6

, w h i c h p r o v

i d e s f o r

m e m o r a n d u m o p i n i o n s

. I t i s m a n i f e s t o n t h e r e c o r

d b e f o r e u s t h a t t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d

n o t e r r i n i t s d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s m a t t e r

. W e t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J u s t i c e

W e c o n c u r :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C h i e f J u s t i c e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J u s t i c e s

decline the State’s invitation to erect an arbitrary procedural barrier to the vindication of criminal

d e f e n d a n t s ’ c o n s t i

t u t i o n a l r i g h t s

.