Court Opinion

ID: 9645986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 22:06:25.649097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:08.096316
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                          08/22/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                 Case Number: DA 23-0438

                                         DA 23-0438
                                                                        FILED
STATE OF MONTANA,                                                        AUG 2 2 2023
                                                                       Bowen Greenwood
                                                                     Clerk of Supreme Court
              Plaintiff, Respondent, and Appellee,                      State of Montana

       v.                                                              ORDER

 STRAUSIE LEIA HART,

              Defendant and Appellant.

       Strausie Leia Hart has filed a verified Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal, stating
that she believes a conflict of interest exists between the presiding District Court Judge and
her underlying proceeding in the Justice Court of Lewis and Clark County. Hart states that
she did not have the opportunity to respond to the State's motion to dismiss her appeal in
the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. She includes a copy of the
judgment she seeks to appeal, a March 29, 2023 order by which the District Court
dismissed Hart's appeal without prejudice and remanded the record to Justice Court.
       We secured copies of the register of actions and the pertinent documents from the
District Court. On March 28, 2023, the State, through the County Attorney's office, moved
the District Court for dismissal on the ground that Hart did not appeal a final judgment of
conviction. The State explained that Hart's case went to trial on August 9, 2022. During
the course of trial, the court declared a mistrial. Hart moved to dismiss, invoking her right
against double jeopardy. The Justice Court denied the motion and rescheduled the trial for
May 30, 2023. It vacated that trial after Hart filed her notice of appeal to the District Court.
The State argued that there was no final judgment of conviction, rendering Hart's appeal
premature. The District Court agreed and dismissed the appeal.
       M. R. App. P. 4(6) allows this Court to grant an out-of-time appeal "[i]n the
infrequent harsh case and under extraordinary circumstances amounting to a gross
miscarriage ofjustice[.]" Upon review of the available information, we conclude that Hart
is not entitled an out-pf-time appeal.
       This Court has held that "appeals of a double jeopardy issue from a court of limited
jurisdiction to a district court are permitted as a 'narrow exception[]' to the general rules
governing de novo appeals to the district court." State v. BurtOn, 2017 MT 306, ¶ 19, 389
Mont. 499, 407 P.3d 280 (citation omitted)! We held in Burton, ¶ 19, that "pre-judgment
double jeopardy rulings entered by a court of limited jurisdiction can, following appeal to
the district court, be brought to this Court only by way of a petition for a writ of supervisory
control." It is not clear from Hart's filings whether she sought appeal in the District Court
of the double jeopardy ruling or for some other reason. Either way, however, Hart does
not have a present right to appeal the District Court's dismissal order.
       Hart's option to seek review of a decision on the double jeopardy issue would be to
file a petition for writ of supervisory control in this Court. See Burton, ¶ 19. For any other
issue, lain appeal may be taken by the defendant only from a final judgment of conviction
and orders after judgment which affect the substantial rights of the defendant." Section
46-20-104, MCA. Hart does not have a "final judgment of conviction" because there has
been no "adjudication by a court that [Hart] is guilty or not guilty." Section 46-1-202(11),
MCA. Because Hart appears to be represented by counsel in the underlying case, we
decline to treat her Petition for Out-of-Time appeal as a petition for writ under
M. R. App. P. 14(3).
       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hart's Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal is
DENIED and DISMISSED.
       The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the First Judicial District
Court; to all counsel of record in the District Court proceedings; and to Strausie Leia Hart
personally.

  We note that the Lewis and Clark County Justice Court is a court of record; as such, rather than
a de novo appeal, Hart's appeal to District Court "is confined to review of the record and questions
of law, subject to the supreme court's rulemaking and supervisory authority." Section
3-10-115(1), MCA.
                                                 2
             eta
DATED this C. day of August, 2023.

                                        Chief Justice

                                     /1474-4- /1)4‘%-

                                         Justices

                                3