### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19-0273
STATE OF MONTANA, 

# FILED

Plaintiffand 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 ofMontana has filed a response in opposition. We summarize Laedeke's criminal history from his pleading, the State's response, and originaljudgment on file here. On May 25,2018,Laedeke entered a guilty plea to one count ofmisdemeanor 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 ofhis 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 ofcriminal 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 judgmentto reduce the number ofhis horses but maintains that he could not 03/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0273seek 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 ofexecution 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 thata stay is appropriate here and claims that he "would suffer irreparable damages ifthe order [and]the subject ofthis 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.at68,758 P.2d at 766 (stating that § 46-20-204(4),MCA, "provides for a stay ofexecution and reliefpending appeal ofan 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 ofExecution,and Stay ofProceedings Pending Outcome ofAppeal is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel of record and to Randy S.Laedeke persoTj i lz. DATED this r---`k day ofMarch,2020.

ChiefJustic 2