Court Opinion

ID: 9365762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 00:04:47.064381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:47.519096
License: Public Domain

01/24/2023

                                          DA 22-0136
                                                                                         Case Number: DA 22-0136

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                          2023 MT 13N

STATE OF MONTANA,

               Plaintiff and Appellee,

         v.

NEEGE R. NELSON,

               Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM:           District Court of the First Judicial District,
                       In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADC 2019-90
                       Honorable Mike Menahan, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

                For Appellant:

                       Palmer A. Hoovestal, Hoovestal Law Firm, PLLC, Helena, Montana

                For Appellee:

                       Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Cori Losing, Assistant
                       Attorney General, Helena, Montana

                       Kevin Downs, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Helena, Montana

                                                  Submitted on Briefs: December 21, 2022

                                                             Decided: January 24, 2023

Filed:

                                     ir,-6t----if
                       __________________________________________
                                         Clerk
Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion, shall not be cited and does not serve

as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2     Neege Nelson appeals from an order entered by the Montana First Judicial District,

Lewis and Clark County, affirming Nelson’s sentence in the Lewis and Clark County, City

of Helena, Justice Court for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), third offense, in

violation of § 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA (2015). We affirm.

¶3     On October 8, 2017, Nelson was cited for misdemeanor DUI, first offense, in

violation of § 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA (2015). The Justice Court arraigned him on the charge

on October 10, 2017. Nelson entered a plea of not guilty, and the Justice Court informed

Nelson of his rights. The Justice Court scheduled a jury trial for March 1, 2018. On

February 21, 2018, the Justice Court granted the State leave to amend its initial Complaint

but did not file the order until February 26, 2018. On February 23, 2018, the Justice Court

issued a notice for Nelson to appear for an arraignment on the Amended Complaint on

March 1, 2018.      In relevant part, the Amended Complaint charged Nelson with

misdemeanor DUI, third offense, in violation of § 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA (2015), and

included an alternative charge of DUI per se.

¶4     On March 1, 2018, the Justice Court commenced a jury trial but did not arraign

Nelson on the Amended Complaint. This trial resulted in a mistrial. Nelson was retried

on the Amended Complaint on August 28, 2018, still without having been arraigned on the

                                             2
Amended Complaint. The jury found Nelson guilty of misdemeanor DUI, third offense,

in violation of § 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA (2015). The Justice Court sentenced Nelson in

accordance with the mandatory minimum sentence for a DUI, third offense. Nelson

objected, arguing that his sentence should reflect a DUI, first offense, because he was

arraigned on the initial Complaint and not the Amended Complaint. Nelson appealed to

the District Court. The District Court affirmed Nelson’s conviction and sentence.

¶5     When a party appeals a ruling issued by a justice court established as a court of

record, a district court functions as an intermediate appellate court but is confined to review

the record and questions of law. State v. Luke, 2014 MT 22, ¶ 9, 373 Mont. 398, 321 P.3d

70 (citing §§ 3-5-303 and 3-10-115(1), MCA). When a party then appeals from the district

court to this Court, we review the justice court’s ruling as if the appeal originally had been

filed in this Court without district court review. State v. Maile, 2017 MT 154, ¶ 7, 388

Mont. 33, 396 P.3d 1270. We undertake an independent examination of the record, Maile,

¶ 7 (internal citation omitted), and “review the [j]ustice [c]ourt’s factual findings for clear

error and its legal conclusions for correctness, State v. Seaman, 2005 MT 307, ¶ 10, 329

Mont. 429, 124 P.3d 1137 (internal citations omitted). This Court reviews a justice court’s

determination “to permit an amendment to a criminal complaint or information for an abuse

of discretion.” State v. Hardground, 2019 MT 14, ¶ 7, 394 Mont. 104, 433 P.3d 711

(internal citations omitted).

¶6     Nelson argues that the Justice Court erred by sentencing him for DUI, third offense,

because the amendments to the initial Complaint were substantive and he was not arraigned

                                              3
on the Amended Complaint.1 A court may allow a criminal complaint to be amended in

matters of substance so long as the amendment is made “not less than 5 days before trial”

and the court, among other things, arraigns the defendant on the amended complaint.

Section 46-11-205(1)-(2), MCA.          “[I]f the amendment is to matters of form, then

under § 46-11-205(3), MCA, the court may permit the amendment ‘at any time before a

verdict or finding is issued if no additional or different offense is charged and if the

substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.’” State v. Green, 2012 MT 307,

¶ 56, 367 Mont. 437, 291 P.3d 1144. Regardless of matters of substance or form, “‘[a]

cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the

convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial . . . .’” State v.

Hudon, 2019 MT 31, ¶ 29, 394 Mont. 226, 434 P.3d 273 (quoting § 46-20-701(1), MCA).

An error is not prejudicial when it does not affect the substantial rights of the accused. See

Hudon, ¶ 29 (citing § 46-20-701(2), MCA).

¶7     Nelson asserts that the amendments to the initial Complaint were substantive

because the Amended Complaint included an alternative charge of DUI per se and replaced

the initial charge of DUI, first offense, with the charge of DUI, third offense. Regardless

of whether the amendments were as to substance or form, however, the Justice Court

1
  Nelson also asserts that the District Court erred by failing to issue an order granting the State
leave to amend the initial Complaint and allowing the State to file the Amended Complaint less
than five days before the mistrial that occurred in March. The Justice Court issued an order
granting the State leave to amend and the State filed the Amended Complaint over five months
before Nelson’s trial in August of 2018.
                                                4
allowing the State to amend the initial Complaint and neglecting to arraign Nelson on the

Amended Complaint were not prejudicial.

¶8    In Hudon, the defendant argued that the court erred by allowing the State to amend

an initial information to include the alternative charge of DUI per se less than five days

before trial. Hudon, ¶ 28. This Court held that “[w]e need not determine whether [an]

amendment was one of substance or form” when a defendant was not prejudiced. Hudon,

¶ 29. We determined that the defendant was not prejudiced when his substantial rights

were not affected by the amendment. Hudon, ¶ 29. We based this determination on the

facts that the defendant had proper notice of the amendment and the effect of the

amendment was mooted when the defendant was not convicted of the alternative charge.

Hudon, ¶ 29. Similarly, in this case Nelson was not convicted on the alternative charge.

As it pertains to that amendment, therefore, Nelson was not prejudiced.

¶9    Nor was Nelson prejudiced by the amendment from DUI, first offense, to DUI, third

offense. In State v. Gardipee, this Court held that a defendant is not prejudiced by the

amendment of an information to reflect the statutorily mandated sentencing range for a

repeat offender. 2004 MT 250, ¶ 9, 323 Mont. 59, 98 P.3d 305. We reasoned that the

defendant’s substantial rights were not affected by the amendment because the elements of

the charged crime in the initial information were not changed by the amended information

and the defendant was still charged under the same statute. Gardipee, ¶ 9. Like the

defendant in Gardipee, Nelson was convicted pursuant to the same statute under which he

was initially charged, and the elements of the initially charged crime did not change when

the charge was amended to DUI, third offense.

                                            5
¶10    The Justice Court arraigned Nelson on the charged crime in the initial Complaint,

DUI, first offense. Nelson received notice that the State amended the initial Complaint

over five months before his trial. Nelson was convicted pursuant to the same statute on

which he was arraigned. The factual basis upon which the State tried Nelson for DUI and

the proof required to convict him did not change. The elements for DUI, first offense, and

DUI, third offense, are the same. The only difference between the initially charged crime

and the crime upon which Nelson was convicted is the statutorily mandated sentencing

range for a repeat DUI offender. Under these circumstances, Nelson was not prejudiced

when the Justice Court did not arraign him on the Amended Complaint because it did not

affect his substantial rights. See Gardipee, ¶ 9. Because the Justice Court allowing the

State to amend the initial Complaint and neglecting to arraign Nelson on the Amended

Complaint were not prejudicial, we will not reverse.           See Hudon, ¶ 29 (quoting

§ 46-20-701, MCA).

¶11    We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents

no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent

or modify existing precedent. Affirmed.

                                                  /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

We Concur:

/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JIM RICE

                                             6