Opinion ID: 889020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: McDaniel's Procedural Due Process Claim

Text: ¶ 47 With respect to McDaniel's due process claim, we agree with the State that McDaniel's argument fails on the first and fourth elements. While McDaniel portrays the District Court's inclusion of due process considerations in its analysis as an adjudication of the State's liability for a procedural due process violation, the fact is that the court referred to due process as a requirement of conducting revocation proceedings, not depriving a person of property. Specifically, quoting State v. Finley, 2003 MT 239, ¶ 29, 317 Mont. 268, 77 P.3d 193, the District Court observed that [t]he minimum requirements of due process apply to sentence revocation hearings, and `[t]he foundation of the guarantee of due process is fairness, which calls for safeguards tailored to the demands of the particular legal context of probation revocation' (second brackets in original). ¶ 48 It is true the District Court also stated that [w]ithin the due process guarantee of fairness, `safeguards tailored to the demands of the particular legal context of probation revocation' include the requirement that the State also comply with its obligations under the agreement (quoting Finley, ¶ 29). However, we understand this to be a conclusion that allowing the revocation proceedings to proceed would contravene the requirement of fairness in such proceedings, not a conclusion that the State had deprived Mr. McDaniel of his property in the benefits of the written contract and administrative decision without procedural due process of law, as McDaniel now alleges in his Amended Complaint. ¶ 49 But even aside from our interpretations of the District Court's statements, McDaniel's argument fails due to the fact that he never raised a due process argument in his motions to dismiss. Rather, he argued res judicata in one motion and breach of contract in the other. Due process is nowhere to be found in either motion. Nor is due process mentioned in his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. As a result, the State did not address the due process issue that McDaniel now claims was adjudicated in the District Court. ¶ 50 In sum, McDaniel's argument in relation to his procedural due process claim fails on the first and fourth elements of the issue preclusion test. It does not appear that the State's liability for a procedural due process violation was decided in the prior adjudication. More importantly, McDaniel's suggestion that the State was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the procedural due process issue is not supported by the record. Accordingly, the District Court correctly denied his motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the State's liability on his due process claimalbeit, for the wrong reason. Nevertheless, we uphold a district court's judgment if the court reaches the correct result, regardless of the court's reasoning. Peterson v. Eichhorn, 2008 MT 250, ¶ 21, 344 Mont. 540, 189 P.3d 615.