State v. Przybylowicz

Opinion

No. 82-167 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and A~pellant, vs . WILLIAM PRZYBYLOWICZ, Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Ravalli Honorable James R. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert B. Brown, County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana For Respondent: Smith, Connor and Van Valkenberg, Missoula, Montana Fred Van Valkenberg, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on briefs: September 30, 1982 Decided: December 9, 1982 PER CURIAPI:

On October 7, 1961, a jury convicted defendant,

W i l l i a m P r y z b y l o w i c z and h i s w i f e , Heidi, of criminal m i s -

c h i e f and a r s o n . D e f e n d a n t , B i l l P r y z b y l o w i c z , o r a l l y moved

at the November 27, 1981, sentencing hearing t o have h i s

v e r d i c t s s e t a s i d e and t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t h i m s e l f d i s m i s s e d

for lack of sufficient evidence to support the verdicts.

The c o u r t t o o k d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t a n d p r o -

ceeded t o s e n t e n c e each defendant t o e i g h t y e a r s i n p r i s o n

and suspended t h e s e n t e n c e s .

In order to be properiy before the District Court,

d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n s h o u l d h a v e b e e n made p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n

46-16-702(2), MCA, m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . That s e c t i o n re-

q u i r e s t h a t such a motion be i n w r i t i n g , be s p e c i f i c regard-

i n g t h e g r o u n d s t h e r e f o r , b e made w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s f o l l o w -

i n g t h e v e r d i c e and t h a t r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e o f t h e m o t i o n b e

given the State.

None o f t h o s e r e q u i r e m e n t s w e r e met h e r e . The m o t i o n

t o dismiss t h e c h a r g e s and s e t a s i d e t e h v e r d i c t s against

B i l l Pryzbylowicz was made o r a l l y , fifty-seven days after

e n t r y of the verdicts. l\lo n o t i c e o f t h e m o t i o n was g i v e n

the State. Therefore, d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n was n o t p r o p e r l y

b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , and t h e c o u r t s h o u l d n o t h a v e r u l e d on i t .

I t is i r r e l e v a n t t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o complain of

the procedural process employed by d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o the S t a t e ' s appeal t o t h i s Court. The p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r was s u c h

t h a t t h e motion s h o u l d n e v e r have been b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t

Court.

The January 26, 1982, order of the Fourth Judicial

D i s t r i c t Court is vacated. T h i s case i s remanded t o t h a t court for reinstatement of the jury verdict against

defendant.