No. 04-132
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 11N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAMES H. GUSTAFSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. ADR-98-214,
Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
James H. Gustafson, Pro Se, Shelby, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Brant Light, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 4, 2004
Decided: January 25, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as
a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,
Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to
West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.
¶2 James H. Gustafson (Gustafson) appeals from the order entered by the District Court
on his motion to return evidence, by which he sought the return of six firearms. The District
Court granted the motion with regard to one shotgun, but denied the motion with regard to
the other five firearms.
¶3 Previously, the District Court had entered an order on June 13, 2001, granting the
request of the Cascade County Attorney to release the firearms, which had been held as
evidence in criminal proceedings against Gustafson, to Gustafson’s former wife, Sherrie.
Gustafson appealed, claiming that he had not received notice of the proceeding required by
§ 46-5-312, MCA. The State conceded the issue, and this Court remanded the matter to the
District Court for a hearing regarding the possession of the firearms. Following a hearing,
Gustafson again appealed, arguing that statutory procedure and this Court’s remand had not
been followed. We agreed with Gustafson, and remanded this matter to the District Court
with instructions to conduct another hearing. State v. Gustafson, 2003 MT 59N, ¶ 21.
¶4 On remand, the District Court conducted a hearing and entered findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and an order which granted in part and denied in part Gustafson’s
motion. Of the six firearms at issue, the District Court determined that Sherrie Gustafson
2
was entitled to five of them pursuant to the decree dissolving the couple’s marriage, and that
Gustafson was entitled to one, a shotgun.
¶5 On appeal, Appellant challenges the District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction,
asserts that the District Court abused its discretion, and also alleges that the District Court
and County Attorney committed official misconduct.
¶6 It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant to our Order of February 11, 2003,
amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for memorandum
opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us that the appeal is
without merit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, the legal
issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District Court correctly
interpreted, and there was clearly no abuse of discretion by the District Court.
¶7 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
/S/ JIM RICE
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
3