State v. Montgomery
312 P.3d 140
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- Montgomery was sentenced on August 16, 2013; the clerk filed the minute entry with the judgment and sentence on August 19, 2013.
- Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.3 requires a notice of appeal within 20 days "after the entry of judgment and sentence." Montgomery filed his notice 24 days after sentencing but 20 days after the minute entry was filed.
- This court dismissed Montgomery's appeal as untimely because it calculated the appeal period from the date of sentencing.
- Montgomery relied on State v. Whitman, where a majority held the appeal period runs from the filing date of the sentencing minute entry rather than the date of sentencing.
- The panel here disagreed with Whitman, concluding that Arizona criminal rules unambiguously fix the entry of judgment and sentence at the time of sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 20-day appeal period begin under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3? | Montgomery (relying on Whitman): period begins when the sentencing minute entry is filed. | State/Court: period begins at the time of sentencing (oral pronouncement). | Appeal period runs from sentencing; Montgomery's appeal was untimely. |
| Whether Whitman correctly interpreted the rules and created ambiguity about "entry" of judgment and sentence | Whitman majority: rules are ambiguous and historical practice supports using the minute-entry filing date. | Dissent and this court: rules (Rules 26.2(b), 26.16(a),(b), Form 23) plainly state judgment is entered at oral pronouncement/sentencing. | Whitman is rejected; rules are unambiguous that entry occurs at sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Whitman, 232 Ariz. 60, 301 P.3d 226 (App. 2013) (majority held entry occurs when sentencing minute entry is filed; court here disputes that interpretation)
- Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-8U1, 174 Ariz. 341, 849 P.2d 1371 (1992) (supreme court discussed confusion over minute-entry dates and noted oral pronouncement at sentencing as the operative event in criminal cases)
- State v. Littleton, 146 Ariz. 531, 707 P.2d 329 (App. 1985) (time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional)
- State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264, 987 P.2d 226 (App. 1999) (treated the date of sentencing as the start of the time period for post-conviction filing)
- State v. James, 110 Ariz. 334, 519 P.2d 33 (1974) (criminal sentence is complete when orally pronounced and entered in minutes)