Case Information
*1 1 CJF ;VfC)NTAN2:1, 1 j
Plaintiff and Kcspondent; 1 O R 1 ) i ' R 1 IIEMANDING V. FOIi ROBEIU L. ROSE. IfllAKlNG Defendant and Appellant.
On January 23,2002. the State of Montana filed an Information in the District Court for the Twntj-First Judicial District, Ravaili County. charging Robert I,. Rose ("Rose") with aggravated kidnapping, assault with a weapon, and assault on a peace officer or judicial officer. On May 23, 2003, ten days before the datc set for trial, Rose filed a to Dismiss for Violation Defendant's Right to Speedy Trial. The State filed its response on May 29, 2003, and Rose filed a reply the following day. Among other things, the parties disputed whether the court should consider the length of delaj from the time the charges \\ere filed or from the time of the arrest (on or about January 11, 2002), and they disputed hom many dajs of the delay mere attributable to the State. In addition. Rose stated (in both his rnotion and his replq) that if the court determined. contrary to Iiose's calculatiot~s, that less than 275 days of the delay were attributable to the State and that the burden, therefore, was on him to demonstrate pre,judice, he would like an cvidentiary hearing
'I he District Court took up Rose's motion during the pretrial conference held June 2003. The court ruled as folloxs: "I'le looked at [your speedy trial motion], and do agree 1,~:ith the State's analysis on that. So that motion is denied.'' Defense counsel inquired "what \vas the basis for that'?" to which the coun responded. "1 think most of the delay is attributable to the Defendant. lle's not met his burden of proving prejudice."
I.ater in the cirnikrence, counscl inquired as to the number of da.ys the court had aitributed to ?hi. Stati-.: noting that cotiri (iipparentlj.) had d ~ ~ ~ : * - ~ r i n e d ih-" a: iess than U i i r l i i - - days of the delay were attributable to ihe State since it had imposed the burden o f p r o ~ i n g -- >"'d'LL l,,q;u i ' * on Rose. i'he i-.or;r: rcspondcdtbati'li]: looked iikc i7! &ays to thc S:a:c and Mr. Rose, to me." iio\vevcr7 the court did not explain how it arrived at these numbers.
Counsel requested a hearing on the speed? trial issue. explaining that Rose \\anted to produce ecidence shoming that he n a s prejudiced bq the delaq She notcd that since ihe corirt had determined Rose had the burden of proving prejudice, he should be allowed an e~idcntiarq hearing to do so. The court denied the request on the ground that .'I don't see a need for a separate hearing." The court also noted the following:
We have a jury sitting out there. U'e have already delayed a trial for an hour doing these motions. We're not going to have time to conduct the trial if we stop and have some hearing. And then. you know, he's complaining about speedy trial. Why don't we extend the trial another three or four months? . he case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Rose guilty as to all three counts. On appeal, Rose asserts that the District Court erred in its determination that no speedy trial violation had occurred. Having reviewed the record before us, however; kve conclude that we are not able to ascertain the correctness of the District Court's ruling given its cursory explanation during the pretrial conference. C$ Snavely v. St. John, 2006 M7 175, *: Mont. 16; 5: 19-20, P.3d 492,qI 19-20 (remanding with instructions that the district court enter appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law since the trial court's failure to do so left us unable to undertake further appellate revietv of the matter, given that ''[ilt is not our job to make findings of fact or conclusions of law in thc facc ofthe trial court's failure to do so''). Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that this case is remanded to the District Court to hold, within days of the date oi'this order, an evidentiary hearing on Rose's speedy trial claiin ivith further instructions thal the District Court, based on the full record, including evidence adduced at the hearing, and on the arguments presented by the parties, enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the follo~ing: the factors articulated in City qJBillings v. Bruce, *3 ?dT ! 86. Moni. 955 P.2d 855, inc!uding; but nci limited to. total number of days of cicia~.. the number of days aitributabl: to the Stale and the number of days altrihurable to Rose. the basis on which tire court arlrihutes each period oi'de!ay; and ic-hciher . . any period of$Clay attributed lo :Bc Stale xvas institutiona! or non-insrituGo::al &lay.
l'r IS FiiRTIiEii OIIUERI" that this appeal shall be hcld in abeyance pending issuance of the District Court's tindings of fact: conclusions of law and order. Within days of fhe issuance oflhc Ilistrict Court's finrdings of Pdci: conclusic>ils laiv and order, the State and IZose arc granted leave to tile, simultaneously. one hriefcach limited I 5 pages of text arguing for or against the trial court's decision. No extensions of time will be granted.
17' IS FUKTIIEIZ OKUEIED that the Clerk of this Court return the District Court Record to the Clerk of the Ilistrict Court and give notice of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to the tlon. Jeffrey I t . l.angton, District Judge. presiding. 7'11e Clerk of the District Court will return the District Court record to the Clerk of this Court, aioug with the conclusions of lav, and order once those are issued. District Court's lindings of ,:.b
DrZ'I'ED this _%:-- day of Octoberl Judge Susan P. Watters, sitting for Justice Brian M. Morris. concurs in the foregoing order.