IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0273

STATE OF MONTANA, FILED

Plaintiff and Appellee. MAR 2 2020

v.

RANDY S. LAEDEKE, ORIGINAL

Defendant and Appellant.

Bovven -

Clerk c•

O RD-E R

Representing himself, Randy S. Laedeke moves this Court for relief, specifically for

a stay of execution and stay of proceedings pending the outcome of his appeal. The

Attorney General's Office for the State of Montana has filed a response in opposition.

We summarize Laedeke's criminal history from his pleading, the State's response,

and original judgment on file here. On May 25, 2018, Laedeke entered a guilty plea to one

count of misdemeanor cruelty to animals in the Yellowstone County District Court. The

District Court dismissed his three rernaining counts and sentenced him to a suspended

one-year sentence on September 5, 2018. The judgment directed Laedeke to limit his

ownership to five hooved animals during the suspension of his sentence and gave him thirty

days within which to comply. The State sought revocation of Laedeke's sentence in

October 2018 because Laedeke still possessed nine horses. After giving Laedeke

additional time to comply and upon his failure to do so, the court revoked his sentence on

March 11, 2019, and imposed a one-year sentence, with all but ten days suspended. It

ordered further that all horses be removed from Laedeke's property.

Laedeke points to § 46-20-204, MCA, for authority to stay execution in criminal

cases. That section authorizes a stay of criminal sentences imposing death, imprisonment,

or payment of fines and costs. He acknowledges that "this case at issue does not fall

squarely within the language of [this statutel" He acknowledges also that he was ordered

in the original judgment to reduce the number of his horses but maintains that he could not

03/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0273
seek a stay following his sentence upon revocation because he had to serve ten days in jail.

He refers to M. R. App. P. 22 and states that he first sought a stay of execution pending

appeal in the District Court on February 20, 2020. He adds that the District Court held a

hearing and denied the motion. Laedeke contends that a stay is appropriate here and claims

that he "would suffer irreparable damages if the order [and] the subject of this appeal were

to be enforced at this time."

The State urges this Court to deny his motion because § 46-20-204, MCA, applies

only to original convictions. State v. Pease, 233 Mont. 65, 68, 758 P.2d 764, 766 (1988),

cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1033, 109 S. Ct. 845 (1989). The State explains that this statute does

not provide relief from a suspended sentence's conditions or for revocation proceedings.

Pease, 233 Mont. at 68, 758 P.2d at 766-67. The State also points out that Laedeke's

request is moot because the one-year suspended term imposed on March 11, 2019, has

expired, and this Court cannot grant effective relief. Shamrock Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor

Co., 1999 MT 21, ¶ 19, 293 Mont. 188, 974 P.2d 1150.

We agree that § 46-20-204, MCA, applies and is dispositive. M. R. App. P. 22(6)

provides that "[s]ections 46-20-204 and -205 govern stays in criminal cases." This Court

has deterrnined before that § 46-20-204, MCA, applies only to original convictions.

See Pease, 233 Mont. at 68, 758 P.2d at 766 (stating that § 46-20-204(4), MCA, "provides

for a stay of execution and relief pending appeal of an original conviction."). We conclude

that Laedeke's request for a stay is untimely and improper because he should have pursued

any such request immediately after his September 5, 2018 conviction.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Laedeke's Motion for Relief from Order of

District Court, Stay of Execution, and Stay of Proceedings Pending Outcome of Appeal is

DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to

Randy S. Laedeke persoTjilz.

DATED this r---`k day of March, 2020.

Chief Justic

2