City of Hamilton v. Hayden

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: November 14, 1985
• Docket: 85-292
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 85-232

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

C I T Y OF HAMILTON,

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

-vs- BYRON CRAIG HAYDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d F o r t h e C o u n t y of R a v a l l i , T h e H o n o r a b l e John S . H e n s o n , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

COUNSEL O F RECORD:

For Appellant:

J u d i t h A. Loring, Hamilton, Montana

F o r Respondent:

Koch, McKenna, Goheen & Boggs; D.W. McKenna, Hamilton, Montana

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Oct. 3, 1985

Decided: November 1 4 , 1985

Filed: NUI/ 1 4 1985

Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Franlr B. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.

D e f e n d a n t B y r o n Hayden a p p e a l s h i s A p r i l 2 9 , 1985, j u r y

conviction in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial

District, for driving under the influence of alcohol. We

reverse t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g m e n t and d i s m i s s t h e cause.

D e f e n d a n t w a s a r r e s t e d a n d c h a r g e d w i t h D U I on J u l y 2 ,

1983, i n Hamilton, Montana. Defendant waived h i s r i g h t t o a

speedy t r i a l a t the c i t y court l e v e l on November 10, 1983.

Subsequently, he was tried and convicted in C i t y Court on

January 26, 1984. Defendant filed a defective notice of

a p p e a l t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on February 2 , 1 9 8 4 ; a n amended

n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w a s f i l e d o n March 1 5 , 1984. On A p r i l 5,

1984, t h e C i t y o f Hamilton ( C i t y ) moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l

a s being untimely. An o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

was e n t e r e d on May 11, 1 9 8 5 .

Defendant f i l e d a motion t o dismiss f o r lack o f speedy

trial on August 21, 1984. T h i s was denied on August 30,

1 9 8 4 , and d e f e n d a n t a p p l i e d t o t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t f o r

a w r i t o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l on September 4, 1984. The w r i t

w a s d e n i e d on O c t o b e r 22, 1984, and t h e m a t t e r r e t u r n e d t o

the District Court. Defendant filed a second motion to

d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f s p e e d y t r i a l on M a r c h 6 , 1 9 8 5 , w h i c h w a s

d e n i e d A p r i l 5 , 1985.

Defendant f a i l e d t o appear a t t h e jury t r i a l scheduled

on April 8, 1985, and t h e m a t t e r was reset for April 29,

1985. T r i a l was h e l d on A p r i l 29, 1985, and t h e j u r y found

defendant guilty of DUI. On appeal., the sole issue is

whether d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d h i s constitutional right t o a

speedy t r i a l . In S t a t e - - v . Knox ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 675 P . 2 d 950, 4 1 St.Rep. 126,

w e h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who a p p e a l s a l o w e r c o u r t d e c i s i o n

t o t h e d i s t r i c t court level has a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a

speedy t r i a l . Whether o r n o t a d e f e n d a n t h a s been d e p r i v e d

of this right involves a balancing of four factors: 1)

length of delay; 2) reason for the delay; 3) defendant's

a s s e r t i o n o f h i s r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l ; and 4 ) p r e j u d i c e t o

t h e defendant. Applying t h e s e f a c t o r s t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e ,

w e f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o

a speedy t r i a l a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t l e v e l .

D e f e n d a n t ' s amended n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w a s f i l e d March 1 5 ,

1984, and h i s first trial d a t e was set f o r April 8, 1985,

over one year later. A delay of nearly 1 3 months is

sufficient to s h i f t t h e burden to the City t o explain the

reason for the delay and the absence of prejudice to the

defendant. S t a t e v . Tiedemann ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 8 Mont 3 9 4 , 584 P.2d

1284.

The City cites the District Court opinion denying

defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of speedy t r i a l in

a s s e r t i n g t h e major reasons f o r delay w e r e t h e motions f i l e d

by the defendant. The District Court opinion is not

s u p p o r t e d b y t h e f a c t s , i n t h a t it i g n o r e s t h e " d e a d t i m e " i n

t h i s c a s e from May 11, 1 9 8 4 t o A u g u s t 2 1 , 1984, and O c t o b e r

23, 1984, to March 6, 1985. We find an unintentional

institutional delay of 236 days i s unacceptable where the

C i t y h a s o f f e r e d no r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y .

The C i t y a r g u e s t h e r e h a s b e e n n o s h o w i n g o f p r e j u d i c e

a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t c a u s e d by t h e d e l a y i n g e t t i n g t h e c a s e

to trial. I n T i e d e m a n n , we s a i d p r e j u d i c e would b e p r e s u m e d

where there is excessive delay between the date of the occurrence and the time of trial. 178 Mont. at 407, 584 P.2d

at 1292. In this case, the City has presented no substantial

credible evidence showing that the delay has not prejudiced

the defendant.

The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the