No. 14573
I N THE S P E E COURT O THE STATE OF MIIWANA
UR M F
1979
STATE: O M)NTANA,
F
Plaintiff and Respondent,
ERNEST SEADIN,
~efendantand Appellant.
Appeal f m : District Court of the Third Judicial District,
Honorable Fbbert J. Boyd, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Byron Boggs argued, Anaconda, Wntana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Mntana
Richard Larson argued, Assistant Attorney General, H e l e n a ,
Wntana
Ted L. Mizner argued, County Attorney, Deer Lodge, Wntana
Subnitted: March 12, 1979
i . .. s
.
_.
_\
-.
Filed : -
4
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 O p i n i o n o f
t h e Court.
On September 1 4 , 1 9 7 8 , d e f e n d a n t moved t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t o f t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , P o w e l l County, f o r a n
o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e I n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d a g a i n s t him b e c a u s e
o f t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana t o comply w i t h t h e
p r o v i s i o n s of t h e I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on D e t a i n e r s . Sec-
t i o n s 95-3131 t h r o u g h 95-3132, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s 46-
31-101 t h r o u g h 46-31-102 MCA. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e
motion. On O c t o b e r 2 , 1978, d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y o f
t h e o f f e n s e of escape. H e appeals.
On A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 7 7 , d e f e n d a n t e s c a p e d from t h e Montana
S t a t e P r i s o n w h i l e s e r v i n g c o n c u r r e n t t e r m s of f i v e and
s e v e n y e a r s imposed i n J a n u a r y 1975. H e was a r r e s t e d i n
C o l o r a d o on a n o t h e r c h a r g e i n August 1977 and s u b s e q u e n t l y
convicted. While a t t h e Denver County j a i l a w a i t i n g d i s -
p o s i t i o n o f t h e C o l o r a d o c h a r g e , d e f e n d a n t was s e r v e d w i t h a
d e t a i n e r c h a r g i n g him w i t h e s c a p e from t h e Montana S t a t e
Prison.
H e was s u b s e q u e n t l y t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e C o l o r a d o S t a t e
P r i s o n a t Canyon C i t y b u t a p p a r e n t l y t h e p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s
w e r e n o t n o t i f i e d of t h e outstanding d e t a i n e r . Because t h e
d e t a i n e r was n o t f o r w a r d e d t o t h e p r i s o n , t h e p r i s o n o f f i -
c i a l s would n o t a i d d e f e n d a n t i n p r o c e s s i n g t h e d e t a i n e r .
Defendant t h e n sought t h e a i d of a n o t h e r inmate a t t h e
Colorado i n s t i t u t i o n . A m o t i o n f o r q u i c k and s p e e d y t r i a l
was d r a f t e d a n d , on F e b r u a r y 23, 1 9 7 8 , d e f e n d a n t s e n t c o p i e s
o f t h e motion t o t h e C l e r k of t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r Powell
County, t h e Warden o f t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , and t h e
County A t t o r n e y f o r P o w e l l County.
i l o l o r e s Munden, s u p e r v i s o r o f r e c o r d s a t t h e I~Iontana
S t a t e prison, subsequently t e s t i f i e d t h a t she received a
copy of t h e m o t i o n a l o n g w i t h a copy o f d e f e n d a n t ' s C o l o r a d o
commitment on March 2, 1978. D e f e n d a n t was r e t u r n e d t o
Montana on F r i d a y , 3larch 2 5 , 1978, and a n I n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g -
i n g him w i t h e s c a p e was f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on t h e
f o l l o w i n g Thursday. The m a t t e r was s c h e d u l e d f o r t r i a l o n
May 1 5 . The t r i a l was r e s c h e d u l e d f o r J u l y 1 7 , a n d t h e n
r e s c h e d u l e d a g a i n f o r September 1 9 . No r e a s o n f o r t h e
continuances appears i n t h e record.
On September 6 , c o u n s e l were n o t i f i e d t h a t t h e Septem-
b e r 1 9 t r i a l s e t t i n g had been v a c a t e d . Defendant responded
by moving t o d i s m i s s t h e I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t h e
had n o t r e c e i v e d a prompt d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c h a r g e a s
r e q u i r e d by t h e I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on D e t a i n e r s . The
m o t i o n was d e n i e d . D e f e n d a n t was t r i e d on O c t o b e r 2 , 1 9 7 8 ,
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 210 d a y s o r s e v e n months a f t e r d e f e n d a n t had
n o t i f i e d t h e o f f i c i a l s o f h i s d e s i r e t o b e t r i e d on t h e
escape charge.
The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t
Court e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o dismiss t h e
I n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g him w i t h e s c a p e p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o -
v i s i o n s o f t h e I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on D e t a i n e r s .
D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t h e s h o u l d h a v e been t r i e d w i t h i n
t h e n e x t " t e r m of c o u r t " a f t e r h i s n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e S t a t e
o f Montana. H e a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o b r i n g him
t o t r i a l w i t h i n t h r e e months v i o l a t e s t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e
I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on ~ e t a i n e r s s a d o p t e d i n Montana.
a
The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e Agreement on ~ e t a i n e r s o e s
d
n o t a p p l y where a p r i s o n e r ' s t r a n s f e r t o t h e r e c e i v i n g s t a t e
i s n o t f o r t h e p u r p o s e of e f f e c t i n g a prompt d i s p o s i t i o n of
u n t r i e d c h a r g e s t h e r e and i s n o t t o b e f o l l o w e d by t h e
p r i s o n e r ' s r e t u r n t o t h e sending s t a t e . The S t a t e g o e s on
t o argue t h a t defendant's request d i d n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y
comply w i t h t h e Agreement's r e q u i r e m e n t s b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t
i n c l u d e a c e r t i f i c a t e from Colorado a u t h o r i t i e s s t a t i n g " t h e
term of [ h i s ] commitment, t h e t i m e s e r v e d and t h e t i m e
r e m a i n i n g t o be s e r v e d , t h e amount of good t i m e d e f e n d a n t
may have e a r n e d , and d e f e n d a n t ' s p a r o l e s t a t u s . " Finally,
t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s a speedy t r i a l
q u e s t i o n and t h a t under t h e f a c t s of t h e c a s e , t h e r e was no
d e p r i v a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l .
The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t r e c e n t l y a d d r e s s e d t h e
p r o v i s i o n s of t h e I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on D e t a i n e r s i n
U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Mauro ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 436 U.S. 340, 98 S . C t . 1834,
56 L Ed 2d 329. Noting t h a t t h e agreement h a s been a d o p t e d
by 46 s t a t e s , t h e C o u r t went on t o s t a t e t h e f o l l o w i n g :
"The Agreement ... i s designed ' t o encourage
t h e e x p e d i t i o u s and o r d e r l y d i s p o s i t i o n of ...
c h a r g e s [ o u t s t a n d i n g a g a i n s t a p r i s o n e r ] and de-
t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r s t a t u s of any and a l l
d e t a i n e r s b a s e d on u n t r i e d i n d i c t m e n t s , informa-
t i o n s , o r complaints.' A r t . I. I t prescribes
p r o c e d u r e s by which a member S t a t e may o b t a i n
f o r t r i a l a p r i s o n e r i n c a r c e r a t e d i n a n o t h e r mem-
b e r j u r i s d i c t i o n and by which t h e p r i s o n e r may
demand t h e speedy d i s p o s i t i o n of c e r t a i n c h a r g e s
pending a g a i n s t him i n a n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . In
e i t h e r c a s e , however, t h e p r o v i s i o n s of -e Agree-
- th
ment a r e t r i g g e r e d o n l y when a ' d e t a i n e r ' i s
-- --
--
f i l e d with t h e c u s t o d i a l (sending) S t a t e b y
y
another S t a t e ( r e c e i v i n g ) having u n t r i e d charges
pending a g a i n s t t h e p r i s o n e r ; t o o b t a i n temporary
c u s t o d y , t h e r e c e i v i n g S t a t e must a l s o f i l e a n
appropriate ' r e q u e s t ' with t h e sending S t a t e . "
(Emphasis added.) 436 U . S . a t 343-44, 98 S . C t .
a t 1838, 56 L Ed 2d a t 336.
The p r o v i s i o n s of t h e agreement, t h e r e f o r e , b i n d t h e r e -
c e i v i n g s t a t e when t h e d e t a i n e r i s f i l e d .
Two q u e s t i o n s a r i s e a t t h i s p o i n t . The f i r s t i s whe-
t h e r d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r speedy t r i a l s u b s t a n t i a l l y
complied w i t h t h e requirements o f t h e A c t . W e find t h a t it
did.
I n Rockmore v . S t a t e ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 21 Ariz.App. 388, 519 P.2d
877, t h e A r i z o n a Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d a s i m i l a r i s s u e .
The s t a t e had a r g u e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p e t i t i o n was
i n c o m p l e t e b e c a u s e i t was n o t accompanied by a c e r t i f i c a t e
a s r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e I11 and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had n o t
had t h e s e n d i n g s t a t e , C a l i f o r n i a , o f f e r t o d e l i v e r t e m -
p o r a r y c u s t o d y a s r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e V. The c o u r t found no
m e r i t i n t h e s e a r g u m e n t s b e c a u s e t h e o f f i c i a l s of t h e s e n d i n g
s t a t e a r e r e q u i r e d t o s e n d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e and a n o f f e r o f
custody. R e l i e f s h o u l d n o t b e d e n i e d a d e f e n d a n t when
o f f i c i a l s o f t h e s e n d i n g s t a t e f a i l t o comply w i t h t h e
p r o v i s i o n s t o which t h e y a r e bound. Rockmore, 519 P.2d a t
879. I n s o finding, t h e c o u r t c i t e d ~ r t i c l e X of t h e
I
Agreement which p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t l h i s a g r e e m e n t s h a l l b e
l i b e r a l l y construed s o a s t o e f f e c t u a t e i t s purposes."
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e it appears t h a t defendant d i d a l l
t h a t h e c o u l d do t o comply w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Agree-
ment. The S t a t e i n v o k e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Agreement by
l o d g i n g t h e d e t a i n e r a n d by o b t a i n i n g c u s t o d y o f d e f e n d a n t
i n accordance w i t h t h e Agreement's p r o v i s i o n s . W e find,
t h e n , t h a t under t h e circumstances of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e ,
d e f e n d a n t ' s s u b s t a n t i a l compliance w i t h t h e Agreement's
p r o c e d u r e i n v o k e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Agreement.
The second q u e s t i o n w e must a d d r e s s c o n c e r n s t h e mean-
i n g of t h e phrase "next t e r m of c o u r t " a s it appears i n
A r t i c l e I11 o f M o n t a n a ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e Agreement.
The Agreement a s a d o p t e d i n most s t a t e s p r o v i d e s :
". . . h e s h a l l b e b r o u s h t t o t r i a l w i t h i n o-- e
- - - --
- - n-
hundred e i g h t y d a y s a f t e r h e s h a l l h a v e c a u s e t o
b e d e l i v e r e d t o t h e p r o s e c u t i n g o f f i c e r and t h e
a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t of t h e p r o s e c u t i n g o f f i c e r s
j u r i s d i c t i o n w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h e p l a c e of h i s
i m p r i s o n m e n t and h i s r e q u e s t f o r a f i n a l d i s p o s -
i t i o n t o b e made o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t , i n f o r m a t i o n
o r complaint . . ." (Emphasis a d d e d . ) A r t . 111,
I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on D e t a i n e r s .
Montana's v e r s i o n s u b s t i t u t e s t h e p h r a s e " a t t h e n e x t t e r m
o f c o u r t " f o r t h e u n i f o r m a c t ' s p h r a s e " w i t h i n one hundred
e i g h t y days." T h i s s u b s t i t u t e d p h r a s e h a s n e v e r been con-
s t r u e d by t h i s C o u r t .
D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 93-315, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now
s e c t i o n 3-5-401 MCA, defines t h i s phrase:
"The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f e a c h c o u n t y which i s a j u d i -
c i a l d i s t r i c t by i t s e l f h a s no terms, a n d m u s t b e
a l w a y s open f o r t h e t r a n s a c t i o n o f b u s i n e s s , e x c e p t
o n l e g a l h o l i d a y s and n o n j u d i c i a l d a y s . Juries for
t h e t r i a l o f c a u s e s must b e c a l l e d by t h e judge a s
o f t e n as t h e p u b l i c b u s i n e s s r e q u i r e s . - -c h
I n ea
two o more c o u n t i e s a r e u n i t e d t h e
d i s t r i c t where - -r-
j u d g e t h e r e o f m u s t f- - -t e r m o f c o u r t - -c h
-- i x t h e i n ea
c o u n t y i n h i s d i s t r i c t , and t h e r e m u s t b-a t l e a s t
- -- e
f o u r t e r m s - - e a- i n e a c h c o u n t y . Any o r d e r of t h e
a y- r
judge of such d i s t r i c t f i x i n g t e r m s of c o u r t s h a l l
b e f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e c l e r k of t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t i n e a c h c o u n t y o f h i s d i s t r i c t , and s h a l l
remain i n e f f e c t u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e judge;
provided, t h a t nothing i n t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be
construed t o prevent t h e c a l l i n g of a s p e c i a l t e r m
o f c o u r t , w i t h o r w i t h o u t a j u r y , when i n t h e o p i n -
i o n o f t h e p r e s i d i n g j u d g e t h e same i s n e c e s s a r y .
The d i s t r i c t j u d g e may a d j o u r n a t e r m o f d i s t r i c t
c o u r t i n o n e c o u n t y t o a f u t u r e day c e r t a i n , and
i n t h e meantime h o l d c o u r t i n a n o t h e r c o u n t y . "
(Emphasis a d d e d . )
D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t s i n c e " t h e r e must b e a t l e a s t
f o u r t e r m s a y e a r " e a c h t e r m m u s t b e t h r e e months i n l e n g t h .
The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e d e f i n i n g t e r m s o f c o u r t
does n o t r e q u i r e t e r m s t o be of equal length. Thus, t h e
requirement of four t e r m s could conceivably be s a t i s f i e d i n
a d i s t r i c t w i t h t h r e e t e r m s of one day and one t e r m of 362
days.
A problem would a r i s e i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s p h r a s e a s
a p p l i e d t o a c o u n t y which i s a j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t by i t s e l f
i n t h a t , according t o t h e s t a t u t e , such a d i s t r i c t "has -
no
terms." But i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , c o u n s e l f o r t h e S t a t e
a d m i t t e d d u r i n g o r a l argument t h a t t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s -
t r i c t c o m p r i s e s more t h a n one c o u n t y and h a s t e r m s , though
t h e length of t h e t e r m s i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t . The S t a t e a l s o
a d m i t t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was n o t t r i e d w i t h i n t h e n e x t t e r m
of c o u r t a f t e r h e had s u b m i t t e d h i s r e q u e s t f o r d i s p o s i t i o n .
A r t i c l e V ( c ) o f t h e Agreement p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t
part:
". . . i n t h e e v e n t t h a t an a c t i o n on t h e . ..
information ... on t h e b a s i s of which t h e de-
t a i n e r h a s been lodged i s n o t b r o u g h t t o t r i a l
w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d s p r o v i d e d by t h i s a c t , t h e
a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n where t h e
. . . information .. . h a s been pending s h a l l
e n t e r a n o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e same w i t h p r e j u d i c e
and any d e t a i n e r based t h e r e o n s h a l l c e a s e t o b e
o f any f o r c e o r e f f e c t . "
Therefore, defendant's conviction i s reversed. The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t i s i n s t r u c t e d t o e n t e r an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g w i t h p r e j u -
d i c e t h e information charging defendant with escape.
W concur:
e
s h i e f Justice,,
Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell, specially concurring:
I concur in the result on the ground that institutional
delay chargeable to the state denied defendant his right to
a speedy trial.
Chief Justice