Title: STATE v PROVINCE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 86-494
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 17, 1987

No. 86-494 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1987 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- RICHARD LYLE PROVINCE, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Thomas Olson, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert F.W. Smith, Asst. Atty. General, Helena A. Michael Salvagini, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana; Duke R. Wolf, Deputy County Attorney For Respondent : Leanne M . Schraudner, Rozeman, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Jan. 29, 1987 Decided: April 17, 1987 Filed: AT-R 1 ; ' 1387 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e William E. Hunt, S r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The S t a t e appeals from an o r d e r from t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n County, Montana, dismissing a D U I charge f o r f a i l u r e of t h e S t a t e t o give n o t i c e of appeal from j u s t i c e c o u r t t o t h e defendant. W e affirm. The i s s u e r a i s e d on appeal i s whether t h e S t a t e i s required t o serve n o t i c e of i t s appeal from t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t on defendant. The defendant, Richard Lyle Province, was a r r e s t e d f o r d r i v i n g under t h e influence of alcohol on March 7 , 1986. The defendant plead not g u i l t y and t r i a l was s e t f o r J u l y 15, 1986. Defendant made s e v e r a l requests t o t h e S t a t e t o provide t h e w r i t t e n r e p o r t from t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r . The r e p o r t was never provided t o him. O n J u l y 9, 1986, t h e defendant moved t o dismiss t h e case f o r f a i l u r e of t h e prosecution t o comply with t h e c o u r t ' s discovery r u l e . The j u s t i c e c o u r t granted t h e motion. Neither s i d e r a i s e d t h e i s s u e of t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n and dismissal of t h e charge under t h e s e circumstances and we do not r u l e on t h a t question. The S t a t e promptly f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal i n t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t , b u t neglected t o serve n o t i c e of t h i s appeal on t h e defendant o r h i s counsel. O n J u l y 2 3 , 1986, t h e defendant received a D i s t r i c t Court minute e n t r y requesting t h e defendant t o make an i n i t i a l appearance before t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The minute e n t r y provided no information with r e s p e c t t o t h e charges a g a i n s t t h e defendant, nor was t h e r e any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e minute e n t r y was a reference t o an appeal from j u s t i c e court. Defendant made a motion to dismiss for failure of the State to perfect its appeal. The District Court granted the motion. The State appeals. In their arguments, both parties dissect and attempt to interpret § 46-17-311, MCA, which provides for an appeal from justice court. The parties discuss what "giving written notice of his intention to appeal . . ." means, citing case law and commission comments to the Code, none of which is compelling. Until recently the State was not allowed to appeal a ruling in favor of the defendant. Consequently, much of the history and case law is in reference to the defendant appealing from an unsatisfactory judgment in favor of the State. Now, under § 46-17-311, MCA, amended in 1985, either party can appeal certain actions. Regardless of which party is appealing, this Court has consistently held that compliance with the statute is required to perfect an appeal because it is exclusively a statutory right. The State cites cases supporting its contention that strict compliance with the statutory requirement of "giving written notice of his intention to appeal" means no more than giving the justice court written notice. State ex rel. Ross v . Mallory (1979), 184 Mont. 29, 601 P.2d 385; State v . Mortenson (1978) , 175 Mont 403, 574 P.2d 581. These decisions are distinguishable. In Mallory the defendant failed to file his notice of appeal with justice court. In Mortenson the defendant did not file his appeal within the time allowed by statute. We hold that "giving written notice of an intention to appeal" under 46-17-311, MCA, requires that defendant receive notice. In the case at hand the State failed to perform that which was required. Namely, the State failed to serve notice of appeal upon defendant. The rationale for requiring that the defendant be served with notice of an appeal by the State was best summarized by the District Court judge in this case. It is patently unfair to permit the state to appeal against a defendant who has no idea that the case is still alive and that he still faces criminal sanctions; Notice was not, nor has it ever been served upon the defendant, Richard Province, or counsel for the defendant. The State cannot be allowed to circumvent procedural due process by relying on a clerk's minute entry as adequate notice of appeal to the defendant. The record shows that an unsigned certificate of service upon the defendant at the bottom of the notice of appeal indicating that the State failed to comply with that which it knew to be a mandatory requirement. The failure to serve notice of appeal on the defendant lies solely with the appellant. The decision of the District Court dismissing the appeal is affirmed. / We Concur: / ( . . B /~*T-PIR / Chief Justice