Title: STATE v SHULTS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13143
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 7, 1976

No. 13143 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1975 STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - DANIEL M A R C U S S H U T , T S , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Peter G, Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert 3 . Yunck argued, Townsend, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas Dowling, County Attorney, Helena, Montana Charles A. Graveley, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Helena, Montana Submitted : December 10, 1975 Filed : JfiV 7 4976 Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether a Montana district court retains jurisdiction of a criminal case in which the state amends an Tnformation charging a single felony to one charging only a lesser included misdemeanor. This appeal was submitted on an agreed statement of fact pursuant to section 95-2408 (d) , R.C.M. 1947 : "On June 3, 1975, a one count Information was filed in the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Lewis and Clark, charging the defendant, Daniel Marcus Shults, with the offense of Theft, Arraignment was set for June 6, 1975. 894-6-302(1) (a), R.C.M. 1947, a felony.4 At the arraignment, upon motion of Deputy County Attorney Charles A. rave$, the Informa- tion was amended to charge the Defendant with the offense of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, 594-6-305, R.C.M. 1947, a misdemeanor. The Defendant was then arraigned in the District Court and plead guilty to the misdemeanor. Upon questioning by the Court, Defendant acknowledged his awareness that by entering such a plea he was risking the full punishment of imprisonment in the County Jail for a term not to exceed six (6) months, or a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or both. Whereupon the Court accepted Defendant's plea of guilty and sentenced him to serve a term of six (6) months in the Lewis and Clark County Jail. "On June 9, 1975, the Defendant filed a motion in the District Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and to dismiss the amended Information on the grounds that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the misdemeanor offense charged. The motion was briefed, a hearing was held and the District Court denied Defendant's motion on July 9, 1975. On July 17, 1975, Defendant filed a notice appealing the denial of said motion t o t h e Supreme Court of t h e S t a t e of Montana." The d i s t r i c t c o u r t has o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l criminal cases amounting t o a felony ( A r t . V I I , Section 4 , 1972 Montana Constitution) and " * * * of a l l public offenses not otherwise provided f o r " ( s e c t i o n 95-301, R.C.M. 1947). The j u s t i c e c o u r t has " * * * such o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a s may be provided by law" ( A r t . V I I , Section 5, 1972 Montana Constitution) which j u r i s d i c t i o n includes " * * * a l l misdemeanors punishable by a f i n e not exceeding f i v e hundred d o l l a r s ($500.00) o r im- prisonment not exceeding s i x (6) months, o r both such f i n e and imprisonment * * *" ( s u b j e c t t o exceptions n o t p e r t i n e n t h e r e ) . Section 95-302, R.C.M. 1947. Here t h e o r i g i n a l charge c a r r i e d a penalty of imprison- ment up t o t e n years ( s e c t i o n 94-6-302(4)) and was c l e a r l y a felony because of t h e p o t e n t i a l sentence. Section 94-1-105(1), R.C.M. 1947. The amended charge c a r r i e d a penalty of a f i n e up t o $500 o r imprisonment i n t h e county j a i l f o r a t e r m not exceeding s i x months ( s e c t i o n 94-6-305(2), R.C.M. 1947) and was c l e a r l y a m i s - demeanor. Section 94-2-101m, R.C.M. 1947. The misdemeanor here i s a lesser included o f f e n s e i n t h e felony. Section 95-1711 (1) (b) (i) , R.C.M. 1947. Unauthorized use of t h e automobile is t h e common element i n both t h e o r i g i n a l charge and t h e amended charge, t h e former r e q u i r i n g t h e a d d i t i o n a l element of an i n t e n t o r purpose t o deprive t h e owner of h i s prop- e r t y . Cf. s e c t i o n 94-6-302 (1) ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947, and s e c t i o n 94- 6-305 (1) , R.C.M. 1947. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e it is conceded t h a t had t h e amended charge been f i l e d o r i g i n a l l y , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t would have had no s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e crime. But because t h e o r i g i n a l charge was a felony, t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t attached a t t h e commencement of t h e a c t i o n . Was t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n d i v e s t e d when t h e s t a t e l a t e r amended t h e information t o charge only a lesser included misdemeanor? It has been held i n a s i m i l a r c a s e from another j u r i s - d i c t i o n t h a t where t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s invoked by an indictment charging felony t h e f t , it i s n o t l o s t by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t a t e subsequently reduces t h e charge t o a lesser included misdemeanor t h e f t . Bruce v. Texas, (Texas 1967) 419 S.W.2d 646. W e consider t h i s a sound r u l e . Here t h e p a r t i e s concede t h a t where a defendant is charged w i t h a felony, t r i e d by jury, and convicted of a lesser included misdemeanor, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t does n o t l o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n . This conforms t o t h e a p p l i c - a b l e g e n e r a l r u l e which has been s t a t e d i n 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law, S 169: "As a g e n e r a l r u l e , where t h e c o u r t has j u r i s - d i c t i o n of t h e crime f o r which accused i s i n d i c t e d , sometimes by reason of s t a t u t e , it i s n o t l o s t i f on t h e evidence he i s convicted of a crime of a n i n f e r i o r grade of which it would n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o r i g i n a l l y * * *." W e see no d i f f e r e n c e i n p r i n c i p l e o r r e s u l t where t h e s t a t e amends t h e o r i g i n a l charge p r i o r t o t r i a l , and t h e defend- a n t pleads g u i l t y t o t h e lesser included o f f e n s e . I f t h e r u l e w e r e otherwise, t h e c o u r t of o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n would l o s e i t s a b i l i t y t o conclude t h e c a s e w i t h a j u s t r e s u l t . The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e f u s i n g t o set a s i d e t h e c o n v i c t i o n and d i s m i s s t h e amended information i s affirmed. 1 J u s t i c e & c h i e f J u s t i c e