City of Red Lodge v. Pepper, 2016 MT 317

Pepper was charged in Red Lodge City Court (March 2014) with two counts of theft and two counts of deceptive practices; he pleaded not guilty.
City Court issued a scheduling order (Apr 25, 2014) with a jury trial set within six months; the City produced partial discovery and withheld key items until July 30, 2014.
Pepper’s counsel notified the City about missing discovery and filed a motion (July 3, 2014) to vacate the scheduling order and reset the omnibus hearing because she lacked needed materials.
The court reset the omnibus hearing but initially left other dates; a second scheduling order set trial for Sept. 26, 2014; the court later continued trial to Oct. 31, 2014 (outside six-month window) citing witness availability and the need to rule on a suppression motion.
Pepper moved to dismiss for violation of the six-month statutory speedy-trial rule (§ 46-13-401(2), MCA); City and City Court argued Pepper’s own motion to vacate the scheduling order removed the statute’s protection; trial proceeded and Pepper was convicted of one count of deceptive practices.
District Court affirmed the City Court’s denial of Pepper’s dismissal motion; Supreme Court reviewed whether Pepper’s statutory speedy-trial right was violated and whether the written judgment matched the oral sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 46-13-401(2) six-month dismissal applies	City: Pepper moved to vacate scheduling order, so statute inapplicable	Pepper: He was forced to request continuance because City failed to produce discovery timely; thus statute should apply	Held: Statute inapplicable because Pepper filed a motion that postponed trial by vacating scheduled dates
Whether Pepper’s discovery complaints justified preserving speedy-trial protection	City: Other remedies (motion to compel, sanctions) existed; filing to vacate scheduling order waived statutory protection	Pepper: He lacked materials to prepare suppression motion and thus had to move to vacate	Held: Defendant could have sought discovery relief without vacating trial date; his motion waived statutory protection
Whether the State showed good cause for the delay (alternate basis)	City: Financial hardship to secure witness and need to resolve suppression motion justified continuance	Pepper: Contends the State lacked sufficient good cause	Held: Court did not reach merits because statutory protection was waived; no need to decide good-cause issue
Whether written judgment matched oral sentence	—	Pepper: Written judgment incorrectly barred work program and left jail time unsuspended contrary to oral sentence	Held: Remanded to correct written judgment to conform to oral pronouncement

State v. Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. 162, 940 P.2d 108 (1997) (defendant’s pretrial motions that incidentally delay trial can remove statutory speedy-trial protection)
City of Helena v. Roan, 355 Mont. 172, 226 P.3d 601 (2010) (§ 46-13-401(2) requires dismissal only if defendant did not request continuance and the State lacks good cause)
City of Helena v. Heppner, 378 Mont. 68, 341 P.3d 640 (2015) (statutory speedy-trial protection does not apply when defendant moves to vacate a trial date for change-of-plea and seeks continuances)
State v. Lane, 228 Mont. 286, 957 P.2d 9 (1998) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls and written judgment must conform)