State v. B.J. J.J. , 2009 MT 313N ( 2009 )

September 23 2009
DA 09-0163
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2009 MT 313N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
B.J. and J.J.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-Second Judicial District,
In and For the County of Stillwater, Cause Nos. DC 08-21 and DC 08-22
Honorable Blair Jones, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellants:
Jeffrey G. Michael, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
For Appellee:
Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Jonathan M. Krauss
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
John Petak, III, Stillwater County Attorney, Columbus, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: September 3, 2009
Decided: September 22, 2009
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court 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 Appellant Youths, sisters J.J. and B.J., appeal from the Twenty-Second Judicial
District Court’s order dismissing their appeals from convictions in Justice Court for minor in
possession of alcohol and denying their petitions for postconviction relief. We affirm.
¶3 The Justice Court sentenced J.J. and B.J. with the statutory punishments set forth in
§ 45-5-624(2)(a)(i), MCA, following their entry of guilty pleas for minor in possession of
alcohol. The juvenile probation officer eventually prepared a consent adjustment under § 41-
5-1302, MCA, to resolve allegations that J.J. and B.J. had failed to provide breath or urine
tests and had failed to complete community service. The State filed a petition for revocation
of the consent adjustment in Youth Court on March 25, 2008. J.J. and B.J. denied the
allegations at the initial hearing and the Youth Court released the sisters to the custody of
their mother subject to specific conditions of the release.
¶4 The State filed a petition to revoke the court’s release order on April 10, 2008, with a
recommendation that J.J. and B.J. be placed in secure detention at the Ted Lechner Detention
Facility in Billings. The court convened the detention hearing at which the State alleged that
J.J. and B.J. were youths in need of intervention. The court ordered J.J. and B.J. to be placed
at the Ted Lechner Youth Detention Facility on the shelter care side for a period of 45 days
2
or for such time as may be necessary for J.J. and B.J. to complete the Family Stabilization
Program.
¶5 The court set further proceedings in the Youth Court matter for April 23, 2008. The
court continued the hearing to accommodate the wishes of the Youth Court officer and the
sisters’ mother. The court reset the hearing for June 17, 2008. The Office of Public
Defender, now appointed to represent the sisters, attempted to substitute counsel in the case
through an untimely filing. The State then filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the
Youth Court proceedings on the grounds that the youths had discharged their sentences. The
Youth Court granted the State’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.
¶6 The youths filed notices of appeal to District Court seeking to appeal their underlying
MIP convictions. The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeals premised upon the sisters’
earlier plea of guilty in Justice Court and asserting that the sisters had filed untimely notices
of appeal. The State further contended that the matter should have been more appropriately
filed as a petition for postconviction relief. The sisters filed a response to the State’s motion
that sought to have the court view their notices of appeal as petitions for postconviction
relief.
¶7 The District Court recognized that the Justice Court had included a number of
sentencing provisions not authorized by § 45-5-624, MCA. The court determined, however,
that the youths could secure no relief on appeal because they initially had entered pleas of
guilty to the MIP charges in Justice Court and they had filed untimely notices of appeal.
With respect to the sisters’ petition for postconviction relief, the court determined that the
3
record demonstrated that the Justice Court’s jurisdiction had expired by operation of law.
The District Court acknowledged that the sisters’ claims challenging the Justice Court’s
imposition of breathalyzers and urinalysis testing had merit. The court once again
concluded, however, that the unlawful provision no longer applied to the sisters and did not
constrain their conduct in any way. As a result, the District Court determined that any relief
it could have provided was now moot. J.J. and B.J. appeal.
¶8 We review a district court’s denial of a petition for postconviction relief to determine
whether the court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law
are correct. Stevens v. State, 2007 MT 137, ¶ 7, 337 Mont. 400, 162 P.3d 82. We have
determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, that provide for memorandum opinions. It is manifest
on the face of the briefs and the record before us that substantial evidence supports the
District Court’s findings of fact and that the District Court’s legal conclusions were correct.
¶9 We affirm.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
4