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:

ForAppellant: J. V. Barron argued, Great Palls, Montana For Respondent: SarahM. 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.yDistrict Courk 

### on July 13, 

### 1979, 

### and was grantc?d a 

### dceferred sentence? 

### for a period 

### of three

### years and placed 

### onprobat.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:eaicesuspeniieil. Rased 

### or the 

### forgery conviction in 

### Hi1l County, Knut-son's 

### probation 

### officer filed 3 

### report of violatinn 

### of the rondi,ti.orisof 

### 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??dsenfimci?, 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### was revoked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, specifi cdly

### reyuirod that parolees be cri.cli.l:edfor 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,rtmento-F1ns.l-itxtionsto credit goncW.irnc nl.lowancesto 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.efto 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.yserved. 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.nqthathe-ri.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:ivestatute wtilich con-troist.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 orinjury 

### 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 immimity

## .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.eror1 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 DistrictCourt. founii 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:lrerwise

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

### The i.~nniui\ity stz3tut.e applesto judiciai actswith 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:lt- appeJ.'late rule. Feryus County v. 0sweiie.r

(l938),107Mnnt. 466, 86 

### P.Zd 410. Xnutson argues 

### on appeal 

### that the immunity statutedoes not apply here hecause the Department of Institutions breached its duty 

### tc determine the good timetowhich shewas 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 thiscase, yet it 

### avai1.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: