Title: CITY OF HAMILTON v HAYDEN
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85-292
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 14, 1985

No. 85-232 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 CITY OF HAMILTON, P l a i n t i f f a n d R e s p o n d e n t , -vs- BYRON CRAIG HAYDEN, D e f e n d a n t a n d A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d For t h e C o u n t y of R a v a l l i , T h e H o n o r a b l e John S . H e n s o n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t : J u d i t h A. L o r i n g , H a m i l t o n , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t : K o c h , M c K e n n a , G o h e e n & B o g g s ; D.W. M c K e n n a , H a m i l t o n , M o n t a n a Submitted on B r i e f s : O c t . 3 , 1 9 8 5 D e c i d e d : N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 8 5 Filed: NUI/ 1 4 1985 C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e Franlr B. M o r r i s o n , Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . Defendant Byron Hayden a p p e a l s h i s A p r i l 29, 1985, j u r y c o n v i c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , f o r d r i v i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l . W e reverse t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t judgment and d i s m i s s t h e c a u s e . Defendant was a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h D U I on J u l y 2 , 1983, i n Hamilton, Montana. D e f e n d a n t waived h i s r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l a t t h e c i t y c o u r t l e v e l on November 1 0 , 1983. S u b s e q u e n t l y , h e was t r i e d and c o n v i c t e d i n C i t y C o u r t o n J a n u a r y 26, 1984. Defendant f i l e d a d e f e c t i v e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 2 , 1984; an amended n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d on March 1 5 , 1984. O n A p r i l 5 , 1984, t h e C i t y o f Hamilton ( C i t y ) moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l a s b e i n g u n t i m e l y . An o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e motion t o d i s m i s s was e n t e r e d on May 11, 1985. Defendant f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f s p e e d y t r i a l on August 21, 1984. T h i s was d e n i e d on August 3 0 , 1984, and d e f e n d a n t a p p l i e d t o t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l on September 4 , 1984. The w r i t was d e n i e d on O c t o b e r 22, 1984, and t h e m a t t e r r e t u r n e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Defendant f i l e d a second m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f speedy t r i a l on March 6 , 1985, which was d e n i e d A p r i l 5 , 1985. Defendant f a i l e d t o a p p e a r a t t h e j u r y t r i a l s c h e d u l e d on A p r i l 8 , 1985, and t h e m a t t e r was reset f o r A p r i l 2 9 , 1985. T r i a l was h e l d o n A p r i l 29, 1985, and t h e j u r y found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f D U I . O n appeal., t h e s o l e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i a l . I n S t a t e v. Knox ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 675 P.2d 950, 4 1 St.Rep. 126, -- w e h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who a p p e a l s a lower c o u r t d e c i s i o n t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t level h a s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l . Whether o r n o t a d e f e n d a n t h a s been d e p r i v e d o f t h i s r i g h t i n v o l v e s a b a l a n c i n g o f f o u r f a c t o r s : 1) l e n g t h o f d e l a y ; 2 ) reason f o r t h e d e l a y ; 3) d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n o f h i s r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l ; and 4) p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . Applying t h e s e f a c t o r s t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , w e f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t was denied h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l e v e l . D e f e n d a n t ' s amended n o t i c e o f appeal was f i l e d March 1 5 , 1984, and h i s f i r s t t r i a l d a t e was set f o r A p r i l 8 , 1985, o v e r one y e a r l a t e r . A d e l a y o f n e a r l y 1 3 months i s s u f f i c i e n t t o s h i f t t h e burden t o t h e C i t y t o e x p l a i n t h e reason f o r t h e d e l a y and t h e absence o f p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . S t a t e v. Tiedemann ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont 394, 584 P.2d 1284. The C i t y cites t h e D i s t r i c t Court o p i n i o n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f speedy t r i a l i n a s s e r t i n g t h e major r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y w e r e t h e motions f i l e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t . The District Court o p i n i o n i s n o t supported by t h e f a c t s , i n t h a t it i g n o r e s t h e "deadtime" i n t h i s c a s e from May 11, 1984 t o August 21, 1984, and October 2 3 , 1984, t o March 6 , 1985. W e f i n d an u n i n t e n t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e l a y o f 236 d a y s i s u n a c c e p t a b l e where t h e C i t y h a s o f f e r e d no r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y . The C i t y a r g u e s t h e r e h a s been no showing o f p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t caused by t h e d e l a y i n g e t t i n g t h e c a s e t o t r i a l . I n Tiedemann, we s a i d p r e j u d i c e would b e presumed where t h e r e i s e x c e s s i v e d e l a y between t h e d a t e o f t h e occurrence and the time of trial. 178 Mont. at 407, 584 P.2d at 1292. In this case, the City has presented no substantial credible evidence showing that the delay has not prejudiced the defendant. The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the