Wood v. State

2024 MT 269N, 558 P.3d 1146

Opinion

11/12/2024

DA 24-0155 Case Number: DA 24-0155

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2024 MT 269N

DANIEL R. WOOD,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV-23-265C Honorable John C. Brown, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Daniel R. Wood, Self-Represented, Lincoln, Montana

For Appellee:

Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Blake R. Koemans, Agency Legal Services Bureau, Helena, Montana

Audrey Cromwell, Gallatin County Attorney, LeeAnn Nicole Certain, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: October 30, 2024

Decided: November 12, 2024

Filed: ir,-6‘A•-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 Daniel R. Wood appeals from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin

County’s March 1, 2024 Order Dismissing his Petition for Release of Confidential

Criminal Justice Information (“CCJI”). We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent

with this Opinion.

¶3 Wood was involved in a motor-vehicle accident in February 2021. After Sgt. Justin

Chaffins interviewed Wood at the scene of the accident, Wood was charged with criminal

possession of a controlled substance. That case was later dismissed.

¶4 On March 20, 2023, Wood petitioned the District Court, seeking evidence from the

investigation, including Chaffins’s body-worn microphone audio. The petition was served

on the Gallatin County Attorney’s office, but did not name the State or County Attorney

as a party. Wood filed a motion for declaratory judgment on June 9, 2023, this time naming

the State as a party. On June 14, 2023, the Gallatin County Attorney filed a response,

asserting that Wood had not followed Gallatin County’s established procedure for

requesting CCJI, which involved filing an application with the County Support

Services/Records Department. The Gallatin County Attorney asserted that the District

2 Court should dismiss Wood’s petition for failing to follow the established procedure. The

District Court dismissed Wood’s petition on March 1, 2024.

¶5 We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion.

ECI Credit, LLC v. Diamond S Inc., 2018 MT 183, ¶ 13, 392 Mont. 178, 422 P.3d 691.

“An abuse of discretion occurs if a discretionary ruling is based on a mistake of law.”

Mont. State Univ.-Bozeman v. Mont. First Judicial Dist. Court, 2018 MT 220, ¶ 15, 392

Mont. 458, 426 P.3d 541.

¶6 The State concedes that the District Court abused its discretion when it dismissed

Wood’s petition for failing to follow Gallatin County’s established procedure for seeking

production of CCJI. While not conceding that Wood is necessarily entitled to the

information he seeks, the State agrees that the manner by which Wood sought production

is allowed pursuant to § 44-5-303(6), MCA, notwithstanding the procedure established by

Gallatin County pursuant to § 44-5-303(5), MCA.1 The District Court’s March 1, 2024

Order is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

¶7 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

1 Wood also argues that he is entitled to reimbursement of his costs in filing this appeal, reassignment of the action to another judge, and sanctions against the County Attorney and the District Court. He does not cite any legal authority for these arguments and “[i]t is not this Court’s obligation to develop parties’ arguments for them.” City of Billings v. Peterson, 2004 MT 232, ¶ 45, 322 Mont. 444, 97 P.3d 532. We decline to address these arguments. 3 no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent

or modify existing precedent.

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

We Concur:

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