Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, TOWN OF DARBY, RAVALLI COUNTY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JACK J. JENKINS, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2006-04-25
Citations: 332 Mont. 34
Docket Number: No. 05-399
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, TOWN OF DARBY, RAVALLI COUNTY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JACK J. JENKINS, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: JUSTICES LEAPHART, RICE and COTTER concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 332
Pages: 34–38

Head Matter:
STATE OF MONTANA, TOWN OF DARBY, RAVALLI COUNTY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JACK J. JENKINS, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 05-399.
Submitted on Briefs March 22, 2006.
Decided April 25, 2006.
2006 MT 85.
332 Mont. 34.
134 P.3d 79.
For Appellant: Jack J. Jenkins, pro se, Shelby.
For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Jennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney General, Helena; George Com, Ravalli County Attorney, Hamilton.

Opinion:
JUSTICE NELSON
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Jack Jenkins appeals an Order of the District Court for the Twenty-First Judicial District, Ravalli County, denying his Petition for Writ of Certiorari or Supervisory Control. We affirm.
¶2 We address the following issue on appeal: Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Jenkins' Petition for Writ of Certiorari or Supervisory Control?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶3 The District Court entered the following statement of facts in its May 24, 2005 Opinion and Order denying Jenkins' petition.
It appears undisputed that pursuant to a number of Darby City Court judgments in 1997, 1998 and 2002, Mr. Jenkins was assessed fines totaling $2,875.00 and was ordered to complete the ACT program and pay the cost thereof in the sum of $200.00. The fines and fees were to be paid in full by March 11, 2003. Jenkins filed an appeal of his convictions to this Court on September 11, 2002, but subsequently moved to dismiss his appeal. The appeal was dismissed by this Court and the case remanded to Darby City Court on October 23, 2002. On November 18, 2002, Jenkins was arrested for Felony DUI and other charges. He ultimately pled guilty to that charge and on June 4, 2003 was sentenced to thirteen (13) months in State custody, plus five (5) years as a persistent felony offender and five (5) years probation.
On July 30,2003, Jenkins was sentenced to the Montana State Prison. He has a parole eligibility date of September 11,2005, and a discharge date of June 16, 2009.
On September 24,2003, the Darby City Court issued a "Fail to Comply Warrant" directing that Jenkins be arrested and brought before the Darby City Court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for failure to pay the assessed fines and fees.
Jenkins has applied for a pre-release center placement, but the Montana Department of Corrections refused consideration of a pre-release placement due to the outstanding warrant from Darby City Court.
According to the pre-sentence investigation report dated June 3, 2003, in Cause No. DC-02-170, Jenkins is in good health and has a work history including employment as a logger, and various other jobs in Montana, Washington, Nevada and Idaho.
Jenkins filed a "Motion to Dismiss and Request to Enter into Payment Agreement" with the Darby City Court, by which he sought to have the Court recall/dismiss the warrant in exchange for a time pay agreement which would allow him to qualify for a pre-release placement. The City Attorney opposed the motion and the Court entered its order denying the motion on January 24, 2005.
¶4 As the State points out in its brief on appeal, many of the facts stated above are not substantiated in the record now before this Court because they come from other sources such as Jenkins' Department of Corrections (DOC) file. However, the State further notes that the Statement of Facts in Jenkins' opening brief indicates that he does not disagree with the District Court's findings.
DISCUSSION
¶5 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Jenkins' Petition for Writ of Certiorari or Supervisory Control ?
¶6 A Writ of Certiorari, or a Writ of Review, may be granted by this Court or a district court or any judge of those courts "when a lower tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded the jurisdiction of the tribunal, board, or officer and there is no appeal or, in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy." Section 27-25-102, MCA. Moreover, this Court will not overturn a district court's denial of a writ unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Schaefer v. Egeland, 2004 MT 199, ¶ 11, 322 Mont. 274, ¶ 11, 95 P.3d 724, ¶ 11 (citing Shiplet v. Egeland, 2001 MT 21, ¶ 5, 304 Mont. 141, ¶ 5, 18 P.3d 1001, ¶ 5). "An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason." Schaefer, ¶ 11 (citing Bailey v. Beartooth Communications Co., 2004 MT 128, ¶ 10, 321 Mont. 305, ¶ 10, 92 P.3d 1, ¶ 10).
¶7 Jenkins claims the Darby City Court exceeded its jurisdiction by denying him due process and speedy trial rights and unfairly denying his ability to qualify for community corrections programs while in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The State argues that the fact that the City Court denied Jenkins' motion does not mean that the City Court Judge exceeded her jurisdiction, which is the standard for certiorari.
¶8 We agree with the District Court's conclusion that while the existence of a warrant may place Jenkins in an escape-risk classification that impacts his placement within the DOC, Jenkins has not shown that the Darby City Court is -under some legal obligation to quash an otherwise valid warrant merely to facilitate Jenkins' placement in a pre-release center or other community corrections program.
¶9 Moreover, Jenkins has not provided any authority to the effect that the City Court Judge exceeded her jurisdiction by denying his motion to quash the warrant. Although Jenkins cites to several decisions of this Court, none of those cases stand for the proposition that a city court judge exceeds her jurisdiction when she refuses, as a matter of discretion, to quash an outstanding warrant so as to render the petitioner eligible for alternative placement within the correctional system.
¶10 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Jenkins' Petition for Writ of Certiorari or Supervisory Control.
¶11 Affirmed.
JUSTICES LEAPHART, RICE and COTTER concur.