State v. Musk

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Musk

438 A.2d 472, 1981 Me. LEXIS 1038

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedDecember 17, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 438 A.2d 472 (State v. Musk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Musk, 438 A.2d 472, 1981 Me. LEXIS 1038 (Me. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Gregory B. Musk appeals from a conviction in Superior Court, Franklin County, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (29 M.R.S.A. § 1312). We must set aside that conviction on grounds not raised by either party, namely, that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction.

We have previously indicated that procedural regularity is necessary for a proper transfer of a case from District Court under 15 M.R.S.A § 2114¹ and D.C.Crim.R. 40. State v. Mason, Me., 420 A.2d 216 (1980); State v. Currier, Me., 409 A.2d 241 (1979). In the case before us, although there are two charging instruments in the Superior Court’s file, neither has been entered on the District Court docket as required by D.C.Crim.R. 55. Indeed, the initial entry on the docket sheet furnished to Superior Court by the District Court reflects only receipt of a letter from the defendant’s attorney.

Under such circumstances the Superior Court never acquired jurisdiction to try the defendant upon either charging instrument. The entry, therefore, must be:

Judgment of conviction vacated.

Remanded to Superior Court to be there remanded to District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein.

All concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Gregory B. Musk appeals from a conviction in Superior Court, Franklin County, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (29 M.R.S.A. § 1312). We must set aside that conviction on grounds not raised by either party, namely, that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction.

We have previously indicated that procedural regularity is necessary for a proper transfer of a case from District Court under 15 M.R.S.A § 2114¹ and D.C.Crim.R. 40. State v. Mason, Me., 420 A.2d 216 (1980); State v. Currier, Me., 409 A.2d 241 (1979). In the case before us, although there are two charging instruments in the Superior Court’s file, neither has been entered on the District Court docket as required by D.C.Crim.R. 55. Indeed, the initial entry on the docket sheet furnished to Superior Court by the District Court reflects only receipt of a letter from the defendant’s attorney.

Under such circumstances the Superior Court never acquired jurisdiction to try the defendant upon either charging instrument. The entry, therefore, must be:

Judgment of conviction vacated.

Remanded to Superior Court to be there remanded to District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 A.2d 472, 1981 Me. LEXIS 1038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-musk-me-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack