*1 MONTANA, OF STATE Rеspondent, v. Plaintiff WAYMIRE, CITY Appellant. JEFFREY Defendant BILLINGS, v. CHESTER OF Respondent, Plaintiff METCALF, Appellant. Defendant 86-502, 86-528. No. 13, 1987. Feb. on Briefs
Submitted April 1987. Decided May Rehearing 1987. Denied P.2d 106. appellants. Arndorfer, Billings, L. Brad defendants Gen., McCarter, Atty. He- Gen., Greely, Atty. Dorothy Asst. Mike Atty., Stewart, Deputy lena, Hanser, Atty., Gayle Co. Co. Harold respondents. Billings, plaintiffs Opinion of the Court. delivered the MR. JUSTICE HARRISON Judi- of the Thirteenth the District Court This is an from County, сourt dismissed District, Montana. The cial Yellowstone Billings, the Yellowstone court and driving Montana. Defendants had been under the influence alco- hol. We reverse and remand. Jeffrey Waymirе (Waymire)
Defendant was arrested March 1986. He was driving issued ticket for of alco- the influence *2 (second offense), suspended hol driving and for with a or revoked license. question
There is a factual plea whether he a or entered plea justice Accepting Way- was entered for him court. fact, 1, 1986, mire’s version of appeared justice April he in court charge, was advised of possible penalty, right his to remain silent, right his attorney, to an right jury non-jury and his a or to alleges trial. plea. He he was then asked to enter He he a claims judge statеd to the he plea did not know the he wanted to enter and would exercise his Apparently to remain ten silent. a or fifteen argument ensued, minute Waymire’s justice and it is contention the guilty plea court entered a him, although and sentenced he claims to plea. not have a sixty day He received a sentence in the county jail.
Waymire then contacted сounsel justice who moved to plea set the guilty plea aside guilty. and to allow not The justice court guilty plea. refused to set aside the
Waymire appealed the sentenсe to the District novo, Court days for a trial de appearance two after in his initial justice settings trial, court. After several to which he did not ob- ject, September 23,1986, on successfully the State dismiss moved to in Thereafter, jurisdiction. Waymire District Court for lack of moved the District granting Court to reconsider its order the motion dismiss, provided to support a brief The Dis- motion. trict Court rеmanded imposition the matter to court for Waymire sentence. From these appeals. orders (Metcalf) Defendant driving Chester Metcalf was arrested for (second offense) the influence of driving alcohol or with a city blood alcohol appeared Billings content of .10 or more. He court, signed rights, a guilty. waiver and entered a His $500, sentence was a finе of he was ordered to attend DUI court school, portion jail was to six sentenced months with a suspended upon completion of the school.
Apparently sentence, аttempted not with his satisfied Metcalf appeal Waymire’s to the District Court for a trial de novo. As case, jurisdiction. appeal District Court for lack dismissed the for a trial order and аsks appeals now the District Court’s Metcalf the District Court. can court or
The issue whether a of first im- is one appealed for trial de novo to the District Court conflicting. is pression. Authority jurisdictions Courts from other guilty plea is appeal an reason that because which do allow nothing is judgment, there tantamount confession jurisdictions which do not may an In those which takеn. authority appeal, general statutory courts have or constitutional primarily so appeal following do which have allowed a trial de novo is jurisdictions where poliсy reasons. Courts regard- statutory authority permitted general on base their decision authority, policy. or on ing appeals, on state constitutional travesty upon jus- argument may it is a well be made “[T]he has, knowledge rights, full of his who with tice a defendant thereafter pleaded guilty and sentenced one court been being heard in another change insist his case his mind and оn tribunal.” (1935),
Burris v. Davis 46 P.2d 1086. 46 Ariz. perti- Montana. The There is no constitutional *3 46-17-311, spe- It does not nent statute in this case is Section MCA. cifically appeal guilty plea, allow of a however. 46-17-311, MCA, part: in pertinent
Section states “(1) city be tried appeal justices’ All or courts must cases on may six jury in before of se- anew the district court and be tried action, except jury in civil lected in the manner as a trial same plus six the jurors of drawn shall be at least that the total number peremptory challenges. total number of “(2) by giving no- may appeal A court written party to thе district except days judgment, appeal tice of his to within 10 after intention may only provided in for in 46-20- appeal the state the cases that 103.” guilty plea and a legislature no
The made distinction between by finding guilty jury. of the court or continuously twenty-five years that the the last We have held jurisdiction appellate no Supreme Court have District Court and the District justice appeal An to the Court to review orders of the court. appeal remedy for an appellant’s de the exclusive a trial novo is County Court v. Lake Justice Adair justice proceedings. of court 2241, (Mont. 13, 14, 1984), St.Rep. 466,] Mont. 692 P.2d [213 Burris, supra, court in adopt 2242. We rationale of the Arizona the reason, public pol- standpoint justice hold the and that from icy, appeals city may justice court of a court or provided they properly perfected. tried anew District Court are by statutory The not exceeded bounds of the District Court are public policy avoiding injustice. This decision based on sound holding give original jurisdiction does the Court of a District 3-5-302, DUI case in violation of Section MCA. city justice
Therefore the court and court may bе heard anew Court. District WEBER,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE and MR. JUSTICES SHEEHY HUNT concur. GULBRANDSON,
MR. dissenting: JUSTICE I respectfully holding “appeals dissent to the that of a may or tried anew District Court (1935), Burris v. majority adopted The Davis has the rationale of 127, 46 Ariz. reason, P.2d standpoint 1084 “from the public policy.” 2, Arizona, Article Section 24 of the Constitution “In states prosecutions, criminal shall accused have . . . all (Emphasis added.) 1928, (Arizona) cases”. Sеction R.C. any may appeal
states: “The defendant criminal action su- to the “ added). perior (emphasis Supreme court. . . The Arizona Court Burris, year 46 P.2d at stated: hand,
“On mag- the other it рresiding is a well-known fact that law; in justice police istrates courts are skilled in the seldom nature; proceedings therein apt summary are in their defendants, although technically spеaking, have been ad- rights fully vised premises, they as to their in the are not as a rule therewith, deny conversant so that where a might been grievous has some cases work a injustice. light and in the сonsidering “After angles, from all matter language statutory provisions our constitutional above
quoted, opinion ap- we the are of that under of Arizona an the law peal may case, judgment taken from a a criminal notwith- standing plea by the the fact that a has been entered defendant.
410 law, magistrates men in the few of our are trained
“While a inferior greatеr prepared. As a the number them are not and cannot so naturally result, proceedings the these inferior tribunals are manner, frequently necessarily more or less informal in their procedural without of the rules both conducted strict observance majority judgments vast of such In the substantive law. results, informally, probably in although at are tribunals the arrived are, however, cоnformity justice. at times with substantial There where, part presiding upon cases with the of the the best intentions magistrate, injustice has been done. policy public reasons, opinion
“For all these we are of the that state, provi- by people our as in the constitutional indicated by Legislature sion and sections the Code above quoted, by holding is best a that carried out appearing those this case does exist. circumstances like added.)” (Emphasis court, I Burris
I do agree as of but not holding with the of the agree has, legislative by constitution or that the State of Montana action, public policy by majority herein. a as declared regarding have untrained
What been true Arizona quality magistrates, certainly inferior is not indicative of city judges training of the received Montana Justices Peace 3-11-204, MCA, 3-10-202, 3-10-203, in 1987. Under Sections training required ses- those described officers are to attend annual sions, Court, supervised by I Supreme therefore the Montana Burris adoption rationale error. believe the Court, speci- Supreme upon the although ruling The Montana here, judgment appealability fied as of а issue indicated doubt to the Rowe, La in State v. upon entered a (1959). Mont. P.2d a
Dissenting Justice noted is itself con- Adair voluntary guilty viction, conclusive, and is and further noted that a rights, including to a is a waivеr of all the defendant’s trial at all. guilty is Bottomly voluntary plea of
Dissenting Justice noted that a judgment jury’s but is from a verdict and conviction different statutory provision for an there is no entered thereon leaving guilty plea, thus the district on a appeal. purported jurisdiction no court with entertain novo in de To hold that is entitled a trial now the defendant *5 district court when court, there has been no trial in where there is no statutory constitutional or language for an from a based plea, on a public pol- where the declared icy of protect Montana is to rights defendants’ through supervised course training of justices peace education judges defy “reason, is to public policy.”
I would affirm the order of the judge. district