I N T E SUPREME C U T O T E STATE OF MONTANA
H O R F H
No. 14754
T E STATE O M N A A
H F O T N ,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
v.
GARY ALLEN,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
O R D E R
T h i s C o u r t f i l e d i t s d e c i s i o n i n t h e above matter on t h e 1 3 t h
day o f May, 1980. I n t h a t O p i n i o n i t was s t a t e d t h a t t h e amount o f
l e g a l l y s e i z e d m a r i j u a n a which w a s i n t h e p l a i n view o f t h e p o l i c e
o f f i c e r s was i n a n amount t h a t would s u p p o r t a f e l o n y c h a r g e .
On t h e 3 0 t h day of May, 1980, d e f e n d a n t - a p p e l l a n t f i l e d with
t h i s C o u r t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g and c a l l s t o t h i s C o u r t ' s a t -
t e n t i o n t h a t our conclusion i n t h i s regard i s i n e r r o r .
The S t a t e of Montana, t h r o u g h t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , h a s f a i l e d
t o f i l e a r e s p o n s e w i t h i n t h e t i m e a l l o w e d by l a w t o d e f e n d a n t -
a p p e l l a n t ' s p e t i t i o n ; and a f t e r f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e t r i a l
r e c o r d by t h i s C o u r t ,
I T I S HEREBY ORDERED:
The O p i n i o n f i l e d by t h i s C o u r t on May 1 3 , 1980, i s h e r e b y
amended i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner:
On Page 2 , d e l e t e t h e p h r a s e "and t h a t b o t h
d e f e n d a n t and M s . Smith w e r e d r u g u s e r s " from
l i n e s 1 6 and 1 7 .
O Page 2, d e l e t e t h e p h r a s e "and saw Tammy
n
F r a z i e r , a known j u v e n i l e d r u g u s e r " from
l i n e 25.
"On Page 1 4 , l i n e 6 , d e l e t e a l l l a n g u a g e be-
g i n n i n g w i t h t h e s e n t e n c e "On o r a l argument
FILED
it was a d m i t t e d . . ."t h r o u g h t h e end o f
t h e Opinion ( l i n e s 7 through 1 2 ) .
On Page 1 4 , t h e f o l l o w i n g l a n g u a g e i s t o b e
i n s e r t e d f o r t h e language d e l e t e d on l i n e s
6 through 12:
"The c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
with instructions t o dismiss with prejudice."
I T I S FURTHER ORDERED t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i s
denied.
DATED t h i s 2 &d a y of J u n e , 1980.
%449&4
Chief J u s t i c e