No. 83-540 

I:? TEE SUPREME COURT Or TIE STATE OF MOTITANA 

1984 

PATRICIA A. KNUTSON, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

-vsTIIF: STATL OF MONTANA, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Bonorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. 

COUEJSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

J. V. Barron argued, Great Palls, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Sarah M. Power argued, Agency Legal Services Bureau, 

GeLena, Montana 

- -- -- - - - - 

Submitted: June 6, 1984 

Decided: June 28, 1994 

- --- Clerk 
Patricia A. XCnutson eppa1.s from a summary jmdcjrnent 

granted by the Di.st.ric:t- Court, Eighth Jiidici.aI D,is.kri.~t:~ 

Cascade County, against. her claim for d.arnaqes for il.?ccynl 

imprisonment ,i.n the Montana State Prison -for' A peri.rrd of 274 

days. 

Rnutson was convicted or, a guilty pi.c?a to a felony 

charge of issiiing a bad check in the Cascade C0unt.y District 

Courk on July 13, 1979, and was grantc?d a dceferred sentence? 

for a period of three years and placed on probat.ion, 

On December 16, 1981 Rnutson was convicted of forgery on 

a guilty plea in tho District Court, TweI.fth Judicial. 

Dist.rj.ct-, Hi.13. Coilnty, an3 was sentenceci to 5 year.: i.11 prison 

with the execution elf the entire 5 years scr?t:eaice suspeniieil. 

Rased or the forgery conviction in Hi1 l County, 

Knut-son 's probation officer filed 3 report of viol atinn of 

the rondi,ti.oris of her deferred sentrenco and .the county 

attorney o:f Casca2e County on February 16, 1982 iil.et1 a 

petition I-o revoke KnlxP:;on ' s deferrc??d senfimci?, Fnl lowi.ng o 

revocation hearincy, Knutsonk d.eferred sentence was revoked 

on April 26, 1982 and she was sentenccxi to selne 5 year:; irr 

prisor:. 

.'In the meanthe, this Court had held on February 3, 

1981, in Crist: v. Secjria (Monk. 1901), 622 I"2d 1020, -38 

St.Rep. 150, that section 53-30-105, MCA, then in cffcct, 

speci fi cdly reyuirod that parolees be cri.cli.l:ed for good ti..me 

while on parol.e, subject to determinal:ion of good behavior 

and cernpl.i.ant:r with the .r-ul.t?s by the pri.son warden and tile 

Department of Insti.tutions, 
In two ~inpubl.i.shed cases, Miller v. SSat..e (19R2)r NO. 

81-565 atrii Stake v, Gray (98 No 82-1.64, we rli.rectec3 +he 

I)c?pa,rtment o-F 1ns.l-itxtions to credit goncW.irnc nl.lowances to 

sentences where the defendnnt.:s were on probatiim while 

serving a suspended or deferred sentence, relying on our 

holding in Crist, supra. 

Xa.;eii on Crist and the unpubliished cases, we granted 

post-con'iri.r.tien re:i.i.ef to Knutnon and ordered hcr reieiisci 

from a cus.todiai instit:ution. At khc time of revocn"iio of 

her dei'rrred sentence on April 26, 3.982, she had accuniulated 

sufficient qeod time credit on prohnl-.iciri that her deferred 

sentence wornlri haw: beeti f"ul'1.y served. The state aqreed thn-r: 

she was entitled to rel.ea.;e under our c;iecisions. She was 

released on January 24, 1983. 

Xmitson Z::i.?cid this suit: i.n the D,i.sf-iict: Court against 

the skate, cl.aimi.nq that he-r i.mprisonmenl: rrnm May 5, 1982 t:o 

January 24, 19133 was i1:lc~cjal. Wer arriendec? complaint aLl.eges 

l:.ha"rhc District Court acted as the agent of the stafi. in 

revoking her deferred sentence. 

There i.5 a c?isp~sit:ive statute wtilich con-trois t.l?ir; sui.t:. 

In section 2-9-112, MCA, it is provj~ded: 

. . inrmurie from suit for acts or omissions of: the 

iar . .I" 

The sentence imposed upon Knutson For her violation of 

parn1.e was a judicial act. Artic1.e 11, S 1.8, 1972 Mnnt. 

Const., provides that the stake sha1.l have no immuni.ty from 

suit or injury to person or pr0perf.y unless specifical1y 

providcl by a i.aw pas.;ed bv a two thirds votc of each house 

ofthe Legislature. Secti.cn 2-9-1 12, MCA, provides such an 

immim i ty . 
111 gnantiiig summary judgment .the District: Court held 

that ow (Jeci~i.ons, csprxiii2.l.v that in C;ray, supra, had 

prospective application only, and did not apply .to Kuutsonk 

deferred scnterice entered ea:rli.er or1 September ! 0, 1979; ancl 

that therefore the pc?tifj.on to revoke her deferurc? sentence 

statas was timely "il.eci wi.thi.n the three-year period o:F the 

deferred sentence. In effect the District Court. f ounii 4.ha.t 

it had had jurisdicticn to rcvokc Xnutson's sentence, 

al-though our decision in releasing Knutson would i.ndi.cote 

o-t:lrerwi se . 

There is no need for semantics in this case, however. 

The i.~nniui\ity stz3tut.e apples to judiciai acts with no stated 

limitati-on, it applies to protect the state and governmental,. 

agencies whenever the judicial. power of the state 5.s put to 

use in a -jut"lici.al ;tcti.orr. Althouqh .the reason given by the 

Di.strj-ct Court j.n granting sununary judgment was incorrect, 

its result can be sustai.neci i.mder the wrong-yeason, 

sight-resu:l t- appeJ.'l ate rule. Feryus County v. 0sweiie.r 

(l938), 107 Mnnt. 466, 86 P.Zd 410. 

Xnutson argues on appeal that the immunity statute does 

not apply here hecause the Department of Institutions 

breached its duty tc determine the good time to which she was 

entitled and t.o not.i.fy the Di.strict Court accordi.ngly. She 

costtends that the District Court i.n this case acted only as 

the vehicle tlirtouah whi.eh ,the harm caused by the Department 

nf Institxtions affected her. That argument is a sul~stantj.n1 

change of theory from her ear3.ier complaint in this case, yet 

it avai 1.s Knutson nethiny. Sentences are pronounced by 

courts, not by the Department of 1nstit:utions. Kmltson's 

sentencing was tiir? result of a judiciril act, Further, the 
immunity stat-vte prot~"~4:s any gnvernmental itcjcsicy invol.vc?d :in 

the judicial act of sientencing. 

Affirund. 

We Concur: