State v. Duncan ( 1981 )

No. 80-191
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS .
NORMAN B. DUNCAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Gallatin.
Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Larry W. Moran, Bozeman, Montana
Marchiondo & Berry, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Charles Berry argued, Albuquerque, New Mexico
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Mark Murphy argued, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
Donald White, County Attorney, argued, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: January 16, 1981
Decided: FEB 11 1981
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
the Court.
Defendant Norman Duncan appeals a denial of post-
c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f by a G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
Norman Duncan was c o n v i c t e d o f d e c e p t i v e p r a c t i c e s and
the sale of unregistered securities in Gallatin County
District Court, for which he received sentences of five
years and three years respectively. His c o n v i c t i o n was
a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t on A p r i l 1 9 , 1 9 7 9 , i n S t a t e v . Duncan
(1979)I Mont . , 593 P.2d 1 0 2 6 , 36 S t . R e p . 748. On
May 23, 1 9 7 9 , Duncan moved f o r c o n t i n u a n c e o f b a i l and t h e
matter was set for hearing on May 29, 1979, before the
Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom. At that hearing, defendant
submitted his written petition for post-conviction relief
p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 46-21-101, MCA.
On J u n e 1 8 , 1 9 7 9 , Duncan p e t i t i o n e d f o r a new j u d g e on
t h e s t a t e d ground t h a t t h e " i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e w i t h r e s p e c t
t o p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n m a t t e r s , and p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s would
i n d i c a t e appointment of a judge t o hear such m a t t e r s o t h e r
than the trial judge whose decision is involved." No
a f f i d a v i t was o f f e r e d by d e f e n d a n t r e p r e s e n t i n g t h a t J u d g e
S h a n s t r o m , o r t h e H o n o r a b l e W. W. Lessley, also challenged,
had any p e r s o n a l b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t . In
August, t h e H o n o r a b l e N a t A l l e n assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e
case but withdrew his acceptance one week later on the
g r o u n d t h a t t h e " c a u s e was f i l e d i n 1976 and t h a t S e c t i o n 6
o f t h e new D i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n R u l e s d o e s n o t a p p l y i n c a u s e s
filed prior t o March 1, 1 9 7 7 . " Judge Shanstrom reassumed
jurisdiction.
On A u g u s t 31, 1979, defendant filed an affidavit
concluding that he d i d not feel he could receive a fair
hearing on h i s p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n relief p e t i t i o n from J u d g e
Shanstrom. On S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 1979, Judge L e s s l e y r e q u e s t e d
t h a t t h e H o n o r a b l e Gordon B e n n e t t a s s u m e l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c -
t i o n t o hear the d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n issue. Judge Bennett held
a h e a r i n g on t h e q u e s t i o n and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d
no a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e on t h e p a r t o f J u d g e S h a n s t r o m . In his
memorandum, J u d g e B e n n e t t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , c o n t r a r y t o J u d g e
Allen's position, a p e t i t i o n for post-conviction r e l i e f was
a new c i v i l action, independent of the original criminal
cause.
On F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 1980, Judge Shanstrom, who had reas-
serted jurisdiction, ordered that defendant's petition be
s e t for hearing i n h i s court. On F e b r u a r y 2 6 , Duncan f i l e d
a m o t i o n t o s e t a s i d e J u d g e S h a n s t r o m ' s o r d e r and s u b m i t t e d
a motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of a new j u d g e p u r s u a n t t o t h i s
Court's newly a d o p t e d r u l e on d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f judges.
34 S t . R e p . 26. Judge Shanstrom r u l e d a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t
on both motions and heard the petition. After hearing,
Judge Shanstrom denied Duncan's p e t i t i o n f o r post-conviction
r e l i e f , and t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w e d .
Duncan r a i s e s n i n e i s s u e s f o r o u r r e v i e w , o n l y o n e o f
which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n . Defendant argues
that i t was error for Judge Shanstrom t o hear h i s post-
conviction relief petition under our rules of disqua.lifi-
c a t i o n and s u b s t i t u t i o n o f j u d g e s . W agree.
e
S e c t i o n 3-1-801, MCA, a d o p t e d by t h i s C o u r t under o u r
rule-making authority, recites in applicable part:
"Any j u d g e , o r j u s t i c e o f t h e p e a c e m u s t n o t s i t
o r a c t i n any a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g :
"6. When he h a s b e e n d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r c a u s e a s
hereinafter described:
"Whenever a p a r t y t o a n y p r o c e e d i n g i n any c o u r t
makes and f i l e s a t i m e l y and s u f f i c i e n t a f f i d a v i t
t h a t a j u d g e o r j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e , b e f o r e whom
t h e m a t t e r is pending h a s a p e r s o n a l b i a s o r
p r e j u d i c e e i t h e r a g a i n s t him o r i n f a v o r o f a n y
adverse p a r t y , such judge o r j u s t i c e of t h e peace
s h a l l p r- e d n o - r t h e r t h e r e i n , b ------- h e r
oce f-u ut anot
j u d g e -- r 3 u - t- c - o f t h e p e a c e s h a l l b e a s s i g n e d
p-
o -s- i- e
-
t o h e a r s u c h d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n----- e e d i-y -t h e
--- ~roc nb~ -
c h i e f j u s t i c e o f t h e Supreme C o u r t , o r by a d i s -
t r i c t judge, i f t h e a f f i d a v i t is a g a i n s t a jus-
t i c e of t h e peace, police or municipal court
judge. The a f f i d a v i t s h a l l s t a t e t h e f a c t s and
the reasons for the belief t h a t bias or prejudice
e x i s t s , and s h a l l be f i l e d n o t l e s s t h a n 2 0 d a y s
b e f o r e t h e o r i g i n a l d a t e o f t r i a . 1 , o r good c a u s e
s h a l l be shown f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e i t w i t h i n s u c h
time. I t s h a l l be a c c o m p a n i e d by a c e r t i f i c a t e
o f c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d s t a t i n g t h a t i t i s made i n
good f a i t h . "
W s t r i c t l y i n t e r p r e t t h i s r u l e and f i n d i t s p r o v i s i o n s
e
t o be p l a i n and unambiguous. J u d g e L e s s l e y was c o m p l e t e l y
w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o p l a c e t h i s c a u s e under Judge B e n n e t t ' s
jurisdiction. The power t o a s s i g n a d i s t r i c t j u d g e t o h e a r
a motion f o r d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n is one s o l e l y g r a n t e d t o t h e
Chief J u s t i c e of t h i s Court. It is our opinion t h a t no
judge involved in this case had proper jurisdiction to
proceed in this a c t i o n once t h e a f f i d a v i t a l l e g i n g a c t u a l
p r e j u d i c e on t h e p a r t o f J u d g e S h a n s t r o m was f i l e d . A t that
point, the case came under the singular authority and
j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s Court.
W e remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s -
t e n t with t h i s opinion.
W concur:
e
34-4 $,a&~
Chief J u s t i c e