State v. R. Laedeke ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                              r
    04/21/2020
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    Case Number: DA 19-0273
    DA 19-0273
    FILED
    STATE OF MONTANA,
    APR 2 1 2020
    Bowen Greenwood
    Plaintiff and Appellee,                             Clerk of Supreme Court
    State of Montana
    v.                                                          ORDER
    RANDY S. LAEDEKE,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Randy S. Laedeke petitions this Court for rehearing of a March 24, 2020 Order
    denying his motion for stay of execution and stay of proceedings pending the outcome of
    his appeal. The State of Montana has filed a response in opposition.
    Laedeke asserts that this Court erred in its decision because his situation meets all
    three criteria for rehearing, pursuant to M.R. App.P. 20(1). Laedeke argues that this Court
    should "grant a supersedeas" to avoid serious injury, pursuant to a general rule of law in
    Nepstad v. East Chicago Oil Assn., 
    96 Mont. 183
    , 
    29 P.2d 643
     (1934). Laedeke contends
    that his request for a stay is warranted because he may be damaged irreparably by
    complying with the Yellowstone County District Court's Order "to liquidate his remaining
    five head ofhorses for pennies on the dollar ofthe value[d" when this Court could reverse
    the court's decision on appeal.
    The State maintains that Laedeke is not entitled to a stay or a rehearing. The State
    contends that Laedeke advances arguments now similar to those he made in his previous
    motion.      The State argues that Laedeke does not clearly demonstrate exceptional
    circumstances; that he does not raise any new material facts; and that he has not shown that
    this Court overlooked any material fact or question. M. R. App. P. 22(1)(d), 22(1)(a)(i),
    and 22(1)(a)(ii).
    Upon review, we agree with the State that Laedeke has not demonstrated any
    exceptional circumstances to warrant rehearing. M.R. App.P. 20(1)(d). We reiterate that
    Laedeke's request for a stay is untimely. The District entered its judgment on revocation
    on April 5, 2019. Laedeke waited nearly eleven months to seek a stay, filing his motion
    the day before another scheduled revocation hearing. The court denied his motion as
    untimely. Laedeke has not shown good cause for relief from that order.
    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Laedeke's Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.
    The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
    Randy S. Laedeke personally.
    DATED this 7, —day of April, 2020.
    Chief Justice
    LA.
    11
    5
    1 A4 4      11——
    Justices
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: DA 19-0273

Filed Date: 4/21/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/21/2020