No. 13143
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1975
STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
DANIEL MARCUS SHUT,TS ,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable P e t e r G, Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
Robert 3 . Yunck argued, Townsend, Montana
F o r Respondent :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena,
Montana
Thomas Dowling, County A t t o r n e y , Helena, Montana
C h a r l e s A. Graveley, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d ,
Helena, Montana
Submitted : December 10, 1975
Filed :
JfiV 7 4976
Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether a Montana district
court retains jurisdiction of a criminal case in which the state
amends an Tnformation charging a single felony to one charging
only a lesser included misdemeanor.
This appeal was submitted on an agreed statement of fact
pursuant to section 95-2408 (d), R.C.M. 1947 :
"On June 3, 1975, a one count Information was filed in
the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State
of Montana, in and for the County of Lewis and Clark, charging the
defendant, Daniel Marcus Shults, with the offense of Theft,
Arraignment was set for June 6, 1975.
894-6-302(1) (a), R.C.M. 1947, a felony.4 At the arraignment, upon
motion of Deputy County Attorney Charles A. rave$, the Informa-
tion was amended to charge the Defendant with the offense of
Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, 594-6-305, R.C.M. 1947, a
misdemeanor. The Defendant was then arraigned in the District
Court and plead guilty to the misdemeanor. Upon questioning by
the Court, Defendant acknowledged his awareness that by entering
such a plea he was risking the full punishment of imprisonment
in the County Jail for a term not to exceed six (6) months, or
a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or both.
Whereupon the Court accepted Defendant's plea of guilty and
sentenced him to serve a term of six (6) months in the Lewis and
Clark County Jail.
"On June 9, 1975, the Defendant filed a motion in the
District Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and to
dismiss the amended Information on the grounds that the District
Court lacked jurisdiction over the misdemeanor offense charged.
The motion was briefed, a hearing was held and the District
Court denied Defendant's motion on July 9, 1975. On July 17,
1975, Defendant filed a notice appealing the denial of said motion
t o t h e Supreme C o u r t of t h e S t a t e of Montana."
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l
c r i m i n a l c a s e s amounting t o a f e l o n y ( A r t . V I I , S e c t i o n 4 , 1972
Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ) and " * * * of a l l p u b l i c o f f e n s e s n o t
o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d f o r " ( s e c t i o n 95-301, R.C.M. 1947). The
j u s t i c e c o u r t has " * * * such o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a s may b e
p r o v i d e d by law" ( A r t . V I I , S e c t i o n 5 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n )
which j u r i s d i c t i o n i n c l u d e s " * * * a l l misdemeanors p u n i s h a b l e
by a f i n e n o t e x c e e d i n g f i v e hundred d o l l a r s ($500.00) o r i m -
p r i s o n m e n t n o t e x c e e d i n g s i x ( 6 ) months, o r b o t h such f i n e and
imprisonment * * *" (subject t o exceptions not pertinent h e r e ) .
S e c t i o n 95-302, R.C.M. 1947.
Here t h e o r i g i n a l c h a r g e c a r r i e d a p e n a l t y o f imprison-
ment up t o t e n y e a r s ( s e c t i o n 94-6-302(4)) and was c l e a r l y a f e l o n y
b e c a u s e of t h e p o t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e . S e c t i o n 9 4 - 1 - 1 0 5 ( 1 ) , R.C.M.
1947. The amended c h a r g e c a r r i e d a p e n a l t y o f a f i n e up t o $500
o r imprisonment i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l f o r a t e r m n o t e x c e e d i n g s i x
months ( s e c t i o n 94-6-305(2), R.C.M. 1947) and was c l e a r l y a m i s -
demeanor. Section 94-2-101m, R.C.M. 1947.
The misdemeanor h e r e i s a lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e i n t h e
felony. S e c t i o n 95-1711 ,
(1)( b ) ( i ) R.C.M. 1947. Unauthorized u s e
of t h e a u t o m o b i l e i s t h e common e l e m e n t i n b o t h t h e o r i g i n a l
c h a r g e and t h e amended c h a r g e , t h e former r e q u i r i n g t h e a d d i t i o n a l
e l e m e n t o f a n i n t e n t o r p u r p o s e t o d e p r i v e t h e owner o f h i s prop-
erty. Cf. s e c t i o n 94-6-302 (1)( a ) , R.C.M. 1947, and s e c t i o n 94-
,
6-305 (1) R.C.M. 1947.
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e it i s conceded t h a t had t h e amended
c h a r g e been f i l e d o r i g i n a l l y , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t would have had
no s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c r i m e . But b e c a u s e t h e
o r i g i n a l c h a r g e was a f e l o n y , t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t a t t a c h e d a t t h e commencement of t h e a c t i o n . Was t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n d i v e s t e d when t h e s t a t e l a t e r amended t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n t o c h a r g e o n l y a lesser i n c l u d e d misdemeanor?
I t h a s been h e l d i n a s i m i l a r c a s e from a n o t h e r j u r i s -
d i c t i o n t h a t where t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s invoked
by a n i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g f e l o n y t h e f t , i t i s n o t l o s t by t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e s t a t e subsequently reduces t h e charge t o a lesser
i n c l u d e d misdemeanor t h e f t . Bruce v . T e x a s , ( T e x a s 1 9 6 7 ) 419
S.W.2d 646.
W e c o n s i d e r t h i s a sound r u l e . Here t h e p a r t i e s c o n c e d e
t h a t where a d e f e n d a n t i s c h a r g e d w i t h a f e l o n y , t r i e d by j u r y ,
and c o n v i c t e d o f a lesser i n c l u d e d misdemeanor, t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t does n o t l o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h i s conforms t o t h e a p p l i c -
a b l e g e n e r a l r u l e which h a s been s t a t e d i n 2 2 C.J.S. C r i m i n a l Law,
S 169:
" A s a g e n e r a l r u l e , where t h e c o u r t h a s j u r i s -
d i c t i o n o f t h e crime f o r which a c c u s e d i s
i n d i c t e d , sometimes by r e a s o n o f s t a t u t e , i t i s
n o t l o s t i f on t h e e v i d e n c e h e i s c o n v i c t e d o f a
crime o f a n i n f e r i o r g r a d e o f which i t would n o t
have j u r i s d i c t i o n o r i g i n a l l y * * *."
W e see no d i f f e r e n c e i n p r i n c i p l e o r r e s u l t where t h e
s t a t e amends t h e o r i g i n a l c h a r g e p r i o r t o t r i a l , and t h e d e f e n d -
a n t p l e a d s g u i l t y t o t h e lesser included o f f e n s e . I f the rule
w e r e o t h e r w i s e , t h e c o u r t o f o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n would l o s e
i t s a b i l i t y t o conclude t h e c a s e with a j u s t r e s u l t .
The o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e f u s i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e
c o n v i c t i o n and d i s m i s s t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n i s a f f i r m e d .
1 Justice
&chief Justice