State v. Bush

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: February 19, 1974
• Docket: 12559
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 12559

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F

THE STATE OF MONTANA,

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

MRS. GLENN BUSH,

Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court 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 , Honorable E . Gardner Brownlee, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant :

Garnaas, H a l l , R i l e y and P i n s o n e a u l t , M i s s o u l a , Montana J . Robert R i l e y a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana

F o r Respondent :

Hon. R o b e r t L . Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana J. C. W e i n g a r t n e r , Deputy A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana Douglas G . H a r k i n , County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Hamilton, Montana

Submitted : J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1974

Decided Cf p I t ; ,

F i l e d :-

Clerk Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant was convicted i n the j u s t i c e court of Ravalli County of a s s a u l t in the t h i r d degree. On March 23, 1973, the j u s t i c e court imposed a penalty consisting of a f i n e i n the amount of $150 and 60 days in the county j a i l . The j a i l sentence was suspended. Following the imposition of sentence defendant f i l e d a written notice of appeal t o the d i s t r i c t court of t h e fourth judicial d i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e county of Ravalli. Defendant did not post an appeal bond. The Ravall i county attorney moved t o have the appeal dismissed on the grounds t h a t defendant's f a i l u r e t o post a bond meant t h a t t h e appeal had not been perfected. On May 11, 1973, the motion t o dismiss was heard by the d i s t r i c t court, Judge E. Gardner Brownlee, presiding. The d i s t r i c t court dismissed defendant's appeal from t h e j u s t i c e court decision f o r the reason t h a t defendant did not furnish the required bond. Defendant appeals t o t h i s Court from the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s dismissal. The s o l e issue presented f o r review i s whether an appeal bond i s necessary t o perfect an appeal from the j u s t i c e court t o the d i s t r i c t court. Section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947,governs appeals from the j u s t i c e of t h e peace court t o the d i s t r i c t court and provides in part:

"(b) The defendant may appeal t o t h e d i s t r i c t court by giving written notice of h i s intention t o appeal within ten days (10) days ( s i c ) a f t e r judgment.

( c ) * * * I t shall be the duty of the defendant t o per- f e c t the appeal. " The Revised Commission Comment t o section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, indicates t h a t the burden i s on the defendant t o perfect an appeal from the j u s t i c e court and s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s : "This burden i s sustained when the defendant has posted the r e q u i s i t e bond * * *". This language indicates an i n t e n t t o require bond as a part of perfecting an appeal from t h e j u s t i c e court t o the d i s t r i c t court. Furthermore, since the code was adopted as one comprehensive piece of l e g i s l a t i o n i t should be considered in i t s e n t i r e t y t o determine the e f f e c t of any one section. In the i n s t a n t case the sections on bail a r e most relevant. Section 95-1109, R.C.M. 1947,adrnits t o bail as a matter of r i g h t a defendant who has been convicted i n j u s t i c e court and who intends t o appeal. Section 95-1118, R.C.M. 1947,imposes a s a condition of admission t o bail a f t e r conviction the due prosecution of the appeal. The s t a t e main- t a i n s t h a t the l e g i s l a t u r e was thinking of section 95-1118, R.C.M. 1947~when i t enacted section 95-2009, R.C.M. 1947, thus giving the j u s t i c e of the peace broad d i s c r e t i o n in determining whether o r not t o require a bond on appeal. After reading the above-cited s t a t u t e s together and the Revised Commission Comment, i t i s this Court's opinion t h a t an appeal from the j u s t i c e court t o the d i s t r i c t court i s perfected when the defendant has posted the required bond, i n addition t o the other requirements. Since in this case defendant refused t o post a bond when requested by the j u s t i c e of the peace, t h e appeal was not perfected, and t h e d i s t r i c t court properly dismissed the appeal on the s t a t e ' s motion. Accordingly, the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s dismissal of defendanys appeal is affirmed. &\ 1 .

W concur: e