Lead Opinion
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 The State of Montana charged Jared Mulloy Luke with five misdemeanor offenses in Flathead County Justice Court. Luke filed a motion to dismiss under § 46-13-401(2), MCA, on the ground that he had not been brought to trial within six months of entering his not-guilty pleas. The Justice Court denied the motion, and the Eleventh Judicial District Court affirmed. Luke now appeals to this Court.
¶2 The issue on appeal is whether good cause existed for holding Luke’s trial past the six-month deadline in § 46-13-401(2), MCA. We conclude that good cause existed, and we accordingly affirm the decisions of the Justice Court and the District Court.
BACKGROUND
¶3 Luke was charged on November 26, 2011, with the following offenses: driving under the influence of alcohol or, in the alternative, with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, first offense, in violation of § 61-8-401(l)(a) or -406(l)(a), MCA, respectively; failure to carry proof of insurance, in violation of § 61-6-302(2), MCA; possession of an open alcoholic beverage container, in violation of § 61-8-460, MCA; and speeding, in violation of § 61-8-309, MCA. Luke appeared in the Justice Court on December 5, 2011, and entered pleas of not guilty.
¶4 The Justice Court held an omnibus hearing on February 7, 2012. Luke and his counsel appeared in person. The Omnibus Hearing Order and Memorandum, which Luke and his counsel both signed, states in pertinent part that “[i]f either party requests a jury trial, the Court will send the parties notice of the jury trial date and will set a date and time for a pretrial conference. The pretrial conference will be set to occur during the week prior to the date scheduled for the jury trial.” The Memorandum further states that, at the pretrial conference, the party requesting a jury trial “shall... [ajppear and confirm the party’s intention to proceed to trial by jury.” The party must also “[flile proposed jury instructions and verdict form and serve a copy upon the
If the party requesting a jury trial either fails to appear at the pretrial conference and to confirm the party’s intention to proceed to trial by jury or fails to file and serve proposed jury instructions and verdict form at or before the pretrial conference, the party shall be deemed to have waived the party’s right to trial by jury trial and the jury trial shall be vacated and the case re-set by the Court for a bench trial at the next available time. ...
The Memorandum indicates that Luke requested a jury trial.
¶5 The next day (February 8, 2012), the Justice Court notified Luke, his counsel, and the prosecutor that a jury trial would be held May 3 at 9 a.m. and that the pretrial conference would be held April 27 at 4 p.m. The Notice of Pretrial Conference stated: “The courthereby orders the personal attendance of the defendant at this hearing.” Yet, while Luke’s counsel appeared at the April 27 conference, Luke did not. Although the parties (in their respective briefs on appeal) dispute whether Luke was merely “late” to the conference or instead “showed up after the [conference had] occurred,” the timing of Luke’s arrival is immaterial. Luke concedes that his failure to appear at the conference on time was enough to trigger the waiver provision quoted above. Luke notes that he “has never contested his waiver of a jury trial” due to his failure of timely appearance.
¶6 On April 30,2012, the Justice Court gave notice that a bench trial would be held on June 13 at 4 p.m. On the date of the bench trial, Luke appeared with his counsel and moved to dismiss the case on the ground that trial was being held beyond the deadline imposed by § 46-13-401(2), MCA. This statute requires a misdemeanor prosecution to be dismissed, with prejudice, if the defendant is not brought to trial within six months of entering his plea, unless the trial has been postponed upon the defendant’s motion or good cause has been shown for the delay. Luke argued that the six-month deadline had passed eight days earlier (on June 5), that he had not filed any motions postponing the trial, and that there was no good cause for delaying his trial past the six-month window.
¶7 The Justice Court denied Luke’s motion. The court reasoned that Luke’s failure to appear at the pretrial conference constituted good cause for vacating his jury trial and rescheduling it as a bench trial. The court stated (in open court) that the bench trial had been “rescheduled according to the next available date on the court’s calendar which happened to be today at 4 p.m.” The court then
¶8 Luke appealed to the District Court, which affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The District Court reasoned that there was a connection between Luke’s failure to appear at the pretrial conference and the delay in his trial. The court noted that Luke had been clearly advised that if he failed to appear at the pretrial conference, his jury trial would be vacated and a bench trial would be rescheduled for the Justice Court’s next available date. The District Court rejected Luke’s contention that the Justice Court could have held the bench trial on the May 3 date originally set for the jury trial, noting that Luke had not pointed to any evidence in the record supporting this claim. The District Court also noted that the Justice Court was not required to relinquish its flexibility in the scheduling of cases in order to accommodate Luke’s failure to appear. The District Court concluded that good cause existed to justify the delay in Luke’s trial.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶9 On Luke’s appeal from the Justice Court, the District Court functioned as an intermediate appellate court. See §§ 3-5-303 and 3-10-115, MCA. Acting in its appellate capacity, a district court does not make findings of fact or discretionary trial court rulings; rather, the district court is “ ‘confined to review of the record and questions of law.’ ” Stanley v. Lemire, 2006 MT 304, ¶ 25, 334 Mont. 489, 148 P.3d 643 (quoting § 3-10-115(1), MCA). Like this Court, the district court reviews factual findings under the “clearly erroneous” standard, discretionary rulings for abuse of discretion, and both legal conclusions and mixed questions of law and fact de novo. Stanley, ¶ 25. Since the scope of the district court’s review is the same as this Court’s review of the lower court’s judgment, we review the case as if the appeal originally had been filed in this Court. Stanley, ¶ 26; State v. Ellison, 2012 MT 50, ¶ 8, 364 Mont. 276, 272 P.3d 646. We examine the record independently of the district court’s decision, applying the relevant standard of review. Ellison, ¶ 8; Stanley, ¶ 26.
¶10 Here, the question is whether the charges against Luke had to be dismissed under § 46-13-401(2), MCA. Whether the right to speedy trial has been violated is a question of law, and we review the trial
DISCUSSION
¶11 Whether good cause existed for holding Luke’s trial past the six-month deadline in § 46-13-401(2), MCA.
¶12 A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24 of the Montana Constitution. State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 20, 338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815; State v. Stops, 2013 MT 131, ¶ 18, 370 Mont. 226, 301 P.3d 811. Distinct from that constitutional right, a criminal defendant also has a statutory right to be brought to trial on a misdemeanor charge within six months of entering his or her plea, with important exceptions discussed below. Section 46-13-401(2), MCA. In the present case, Luke has asserted only his statutory right to a speedy trial.
¶13 Pursuantto § 46-13-401(2), MCA, a prosecution on a misdemeanor charge must be dismissed, with prejudice, if the defendant is not brought to trial within six months after entering his or her plea. This requirement applies, however, only if (1) the trial “has not been postponed upon the defendant’s motion” and (2) the State has not shown “good cause” for the delay. Section 46-13-401(2), MCA; accord Martz, ¶ 30.
¶14 In the present case, the first prong is met. Luke did not file any motion requesting a postponement of his trial. Nor did he file any pretrial motions that had the “incidental effect” of delaying his trial beyond the six-month time limit. State v. Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. 162, 166-67, 940 P.2d 108, 111 (1997). In fact, Luke did not file any motions
¶15 This case, therefore, turns on the second prong: whether “good cause” was shown for the delay. Good cause is generally defined as a “legally sufficient reason” and is referred to as “the burden placed on a litigant (usu. by court rule or order) to show why a request should be granted or an action excused.” Roan, ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks omitted). Good cause necessarily depends on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Roan, ¶ 13.
¶16 In arguing that the State failed to establish good cause for the delay here, Luke relies heavily on State v. Bertolino, 2003 MT 266, 317 Mont. 453, 77 P.3d 543, where we held that Bertolino’s passive disregard for court-ordered deadlines did not constitute good cause for delaying her trial beyond the six-month time limit. We emphasized that “the record reveals no connection between Bertolino’s failure to respond to the [court] orders and the failure to bring the case to trial within six months.” Bertolino, ¶ 15. Luke argues that his situation is analogous because, in his view, his failure to appear as ordered at the pretrial conference did not cause “affirmative procedural delay.” See Bertolino, ¶ 14 (citing Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. at 166-67, 940 P.2d at 111).
¶17 We agree with the State, however, that Bertolino is distinguishable. Luke was on notice that his “personal attendance” at the pretrial conference was mandatory and that, if he failed to appear at the conference, his case would be reset as a bench trial at the next available time. Unlike Bertolino, where there was no indication that Bertolino’s failure to comply with court orders necessitated a continuance of the trial, there is a clear and direct connection between Luke’s failure to appear punctually for the pretrial conference and his trial date’s being rescheduled from May 3, 2012, to June 13, 2012. ¶18 Bertolino aside, Luke’s primary argument is that the Justice Court’s decision to postpone his trial to June 13 was “unnecessary.” He opines that “holding a bench trial instead of a jury trial on the already scheduled date” would not have been inconvenient for the Justice Court. Luke asserts that his “tardiness in attending his pretrial conference did not disrupt the Justice Court’s schedule,” and he posits that “[w]ith a May 3rd trial date already scheduled, the Justice Court should have simply converted the May 3rd jury trial date into a bench trial date and heard evidence that day.”
¶19 In essence, Luke proposes that where a defendant has waived (or forfeited) his right to a jury trial on a misdemeanor charge by failing to appear at a mandatory pretrial conference, the justice court
¶20 Luke’s bench trial occurred eight days beyond the six-month deadline. The only question for purposes of § 46-13-401(2), MCA, is whether, on the totality of the facts and circumstances, there was good cause-i.e., a “legally sufficient reason,” Roan, ¶ 13-for this delay. The record, in summary, reflects that on February 8, 2012, the Justice Court set a jury trial for the morning of May 3 and notified Luke that he was required to attend personally a pretrial conference set for the
¶22 The Justice Court did not err in denying Luke’s motion to dismiss, and the District Court, accordingly, did not err in affirming the Justice Court’s decision.
¶23 Affirmed.
The statute states, in full: “After the entry of a plea upon a misdemeanor charge, the court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the prosecution to be dismissed, with prejudice, if a defendant whose trial has not been postponed upon the defendant’s motion is not brought to trial within 6 months.” Section 46-13-401(2), MCA.
Dissenting Opinion
dissents.
¶24 In my view, this Court is wrong to affirm the District Court’s denial of Luke’s motion to dismiss because the Justice Court did not grant Luke a trial within six months, as required by statute. Section 46-13-401(2), MCA, requires dismissal of a misdemeanor charge
¶25 The majority’s opinion relies on the need for flexibility in scheduling we emphasized in State v. Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. 162, 940 P.2d 108 (1997). In Fitzgerald, a criminal defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to § 46-13-401(2), MCA, even though the delay to his trial was caused by his motions for continuances of his omnibus hearing date. Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. at 166-67, 940 P.2d at 110-11. We held that “the Justice Court cannot be expected to alter its schedule to ensure that the misdemeanor charge is tried within six months” where the defendant’s own motion is the reason for the delay. Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. at 167, 940 P.2d at 111. Instead, we observed that “[a] Justice Court must retain a measure of flexibility over scheduling to hear cases on its docket.” Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. at 167, 940 P.2d at 111. In contrast, here, Luke did not file any motions or continuances that caused the delay.
¶26 The facts of this case are more like those in Bertolino. There, Bertolino and her counsel failed to respond to several court-ordered deadlines, including a deadline to file a waiver of her right to a jury trial. Bertolino, ¶¶ 6-8. The court reset the trial upon the State’s motion because the County Attorney had to appear in Helena on the day set for the trial. Bertolino, ¶ 7. The court scheduled a non-jury trial, but not within the six months required by statute. Bertolino, ¶ 8. At the bench trial, Bertolino filed a motion to dismiss because her case had not been brought to trial within six months of the entry of her plea. Bertolino, ¶ 8. This Court explained there was no connection between the delay to the trial date and Bertolino’s failure to comply with the court orders. Bertolino, ¶ 15. The State, instead of offering an argument that good cause was established because the County Attorney was not available for trial, simply pointed a finger at Bertolino “in an effort to blame her for the failure to try the case in a timely manner.” Bertolino, ¶ 15. Since the State failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay, we held that Bertolino’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. Bertolino, ¶ 16.
¶28 Rather, the State has the burden of showing good cause for the delay sufficient to alleviate its statutory obligation to bring the case to trial within six months. The State has not done so. The record does not reveal why the State failed to bring the case to trial within six months. The court’s routine scheduling practices do not amount to a “legally sufficient reason,” Roan, ¶ 13, for failing to comply with the statute. Similarly to Bertolino, where the County Attorney’s absence caused the delay to Bertolino’s trial, Luke’s trial date appears to have been delayed solely based on the court’s scheduling practices. Although “the Justice Court cannot be expected to alter its schedule to ensure that the misdemeanor charge is tried within six months” where the defendant’s own motion is the reason for the delay, Fitzgerald, 283 Mont, at 167, 940 P.2d at 111, the court’s convenience does not supersede the State’s obligation to comply with the statute where compliance is possible. The State has provided no reason why the court could not simply have conducted a bench trial during the time scheduled for a jury trial.
¶29 The majority’s opinion does an excellent job explaining the reasons for the scheduling rules. Those reasons, however, are not part of the record and were not set forth in the State’s brief. We review the record before us.
¶30 Nor should we accept the State’s broad argument that the Justice Court’s need for “flexibility over scheduling,” Fitzgerald, 283 Mont, at 167, 940 P.2d at 111, justifies the State’s failure to comply with the
¶31 The State has not shown good cause for its failure to bring Luke to trial within the period specified by the statute. I cannot join in the majority’s opinion that the District Court correctly resolved this matter. I would reverse the District Court’s determination and grant Luke’s motion to dismiss.