Collins v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 418 P.3d 672

Collins was charged with assault with a weapon; arraignment initially set for Jan 4, 2018; he failed to appear and the court issued a warrant.
Collins was arrested and subsequently arraigned in person on Jan 25, 2018.
On Jan 31, 2018 Collins filed a motion to substitute the assigned judge under § 3-1-804(1)(b), MCA.
The District Court denied the substitution motion as untimely, reasoning the ten-day clock ran from the scheduled Jan 4 arraignment (when Collins did not appear).
Collins petitioned this Court for a writ of supervisory control to set aside the denial, arguing the ten-day period runs from the actual arraignment when the defendant is present.
This Court accepted supervisory review because the issue is purely legal, urgent as to the statutory right to substitution, and involves denial of a criminal substitution motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ten-day filing period in § 3-1-804(1)(b), MCA, begins when a defendant fails to appear at a scheduled arraignment or when the defendant is actually arraigned (physically or by two-way video)	Collins: the clock begins when defendant is actually arraigned (i.e., when called into open court, charged, given charging document, and asked to plead)	District Court: plain language of § 3-1-804(1)(b) does not require personal appearance; the ten-day period can begin at the scheduled arraignment even if defendant did not appear	The ten-day period begins at the actual arraignment compliant with Title 46 requirements (in-person or two-way audio-video). Collins’s Jan 31 motion was timely.

D.H. v. Mont. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 365 Mont. 82, 278 P.3d 1010 (exercising supervisory control over denial of substitution of judge in juvenile/criminal context)
Dusek v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 318 Mont. 166, 79 P.3d 292 (exercising supervisory control where district court incorrectly denied motion for substitution of judge)