STATE v DeGEORGE KENNEDY HOLMA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13562 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA H OR F F 1976 T E STATE O MONTANA, H F P l a i n t i f f s and Respondent, ED DeGEORGE, WILLIAM KENNEDY and E. J. HOLMAN, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. James D. Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Mark P. S u l l i v a n argued, B u t t e , Montana For Respondent : John G. Winston argued, County Attorney, B u t t e , Montana J a c k Parker argued, Deputy County Attorney, B u t t e , Montana For Amicus Curiae: Luxan and M u r f i t t , Helena, Montana Terence B e Cosgrove argued, Helena, Montana Submitted : October 20, 1976 Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding wherein defendantsa p p e l l a n t s p e t i t i o n e d f o r a s t a y of e x e c u t i o n o f a judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n and f o r f e i t u r e of p u b l i c o f f i c e . Counsel was h e a r d ex p a r t e and t h e matter t a k e n under a d v i s e m e n t . There- a f t e r t h e Court o r d e r e d a n a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g and s t a y e d e x e c u t i o n o f t h e judgment u n t i l t h e f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e C o u r t . The a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g was h e l d , b r i e f s f i l e d , o r a l a r g u ment had and t h e c a u s e s u b m i t t e d . I t a p p e a r s t h a t d e f e n d a n t s were c h a r g e d w i t h o f f i c i a l misconduct, a misdemeanor, i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S i l v e r Bow County. A j u r y t r i a l r e s u l t e d i n a unanimous v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y and a judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n was e n t e r e d . The g i s t o f t h e c h a r g e w a s t h a t d e f e n d a n t s , who w e r e t h e members o f t h e board o f c o u n t y commissioners, had e n t e r e d i n t o two c o n t r a c t s f o r c o u n t y r o a d c o n s t r u c t i o n , one f o r $2,898 and t h e o t h e r f o r $9,901, w i t h o u t f i r s t advertising f o r bids. The judgment d i d n o t c o n t a i n any o r d e r of f o r f e i t u r e of o f f i c e a s s p e c i f i e d i n s e c t i o n 94-7-401(4), R.C.M. 1947, a s amended, b u t t h e p r e s i d i n g d i s t r i c t judge a d v i s e d d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e t i m e t h e judgment was e n t e r e d t h a t t h e y would no l o n g e r be a b l e t o perform any o f f i c i a l d u t i e s a s c o u n t y commissioners bec a u s e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of s u c h s e c t i o n . Defendants a p p l i e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a n o r d e r s t a y i n g e x e c u t i o n which was d e n i e d . Court f o l l o w e d . The a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h i s Defendants have a p p e a l e d t h e i r c o n v i c t i o n s . I t i s a g r e e d t h a t t h e o n l y q u e s t i o n s now b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t a r e whether o r n o t t h e a p p e a l s t a y e d t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f o f f i c e , a n d , i f n o t , c a n s u c h f o r f e i t u r e be s t a y e d by t h i s C o u r t i n view o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e s t a t u t o r y law? S e c t i o n 94-7-401 ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947, a s amended, i n s o f a r a s herein p e r t i n e n t , provides: " ( 4 ) A p u b l i c s e r v a n t who h a s been c h a r g e d a s provided i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 3 ) may be suspended from h i s o f f i c e w i t h o u t pay pending f i n a l judgment. Upon f i n a l judgment of c o n v i c t i o n he s h a l l permanently f o r f e i t h i s office. Upon a c q u i t t a l h e s h a l l be r e i n s t a t e d i n h i s o f f i c e and s h a l l rec e i v e a l l back p a y . " This paragraph i s n o t a p o r t i o n of t h e penalty s e c t i o n , which i s s e c t i o n 94-7-401(2), R.C.M. 1947, and r e a d s : " ( 2 ) A p u b l i c s e r v a n t c o n v i c t e d of t h e o f f e n s e o f o f f i c i a l misconduct s h a l l be f i n e d n o t t o exceed f i v e hundred d o l l a r s ($500) o r be i m prisoned i n t h e county j a i l f o r a t e r m n o t t o exceed s i x ( 6 ) months, o r b o t h . " Counsel a d m i t t h a t a r e v i e w of t h e c a s e s i n v o l v i n g l i k e s i t u a t i o n s show a s p l i t o f a u t h o r i t y . W e a r e impressed w i t h t h e r e a s o n i n g of t h e Arizona Supreme C o u r t i n S t a t e v s . S u l l i v a n , 66 A r i z . 348, 188 P.2d 592,599, from which we q u o t e : " * * * I t i s o u r o p i n i o n t h a t a vacancy i s c r e a t e d t h e moment a judgment of c o n v i c t i o n i s e n t e r e d a g a i n s t a p u b l i c o f f i c e r . No a p p e a l o r c e r t i f i c a t e o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e c a n a v o i d t h e vacancy o r t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r appointment. W e c i t e with approval t h e c a s e of McKannay v. Horton, 1 5 1 C a l . 711, 91 N.S., 661, 1 2 1 Arn.St.Rep. P. 598, 601, 1 3 L . R . A . , 1 4 6 , i n which t h e c o u r t s a i d : " ' * * * The o n l y e f f e c t o f a n a p p e a l and c e r t i f i c a t e of probable cause i s t o s t a y t h e execution of t h e judgment. Removal from o f f i c e i s n o t p a r t of t h e judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n i n c a s e s o f f e l o n y , though a consequence which f l o w s from i t , and t h e s t a t u t e i n e x p r e s s t e r m s d e f i n e s and t h e r e b y l i m i t s t h e e f f e c t of t h e a p p e a l and c e r t i f i c a t e o f p r o b a b l e cause. * * * ' "To l i k e e f f e c t see S t a t e v . Chapmen, 187 Wash. 640; I n r e O b e r g f e l l , 327, 60 P.2d 245, 106 A.L.R. 239 N.Y. 48, 145 N.E. 323. "The o b j e c t o f t h e removal of a p u b l i c o f f i c e r f o r o f f i c i a l misconduct i s n o t t o p u n i s h t h e o f f i c e r , b u t t o improve t h e p u b l i c s e r v i c e . The p u b l i c i n t e r e s t demands t h a t p u b l i c a f f a i r s be a d m i n i s t e r e d by o f f i c e r s upon whom r e s t s no s t i g m a o f c o n v i c t i o n of a f e l o n y , o r o f any o f f e n s e i n volving a v i o l a t i o n of t h e i r o f f i c i a l d u t i e s . " The A n n o t a t i o n i n 7 1 ALR2d 593, 600, d i s c u s s e s many c a s e s and t h e a n n o t a t o r s t a t e s : "A m a j o r i t y of t h e c a s e s , where t h e r e w e r e p r o v i s i o n s declaring, i n substance, t h a t a public o f f i c e s h a l l become v a c a n t upon t h e i n c u m b e n t ' s conviction of a felony o r c e r t a i n o t h e r crimes, have h e l d t h a t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g a n a p p e a l , t h e r e was a c o n v i c t i o n w i t h i n t h e meaning o f t h e prov i s i o n s and t h a t s u c h c o n v i c t i o n c a u s e d an immedi a t e vacancy, d e s p i t e t h e a p p e a l , t h e c o u r t s i n most i n s t a n c e s r e a s o n i n g , t o o n e d e g r e e o r a n o t h e r , a l o n g t h e f o l l o w i n g l i n e s : t h a t t h e vacancy i n , o r removal from, o f f i c e r e s u l t i n g from t h e conv i c t i o n was n o t a punishment and d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e p a r t o f t h e judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n , b u t w a s a consequence imposed i n t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e p u b l i c and of sound government, and t h a t it would be a g a i n s t t h i s p u b l i c i n t e r e s t t o r e t a i n i n o f f i c e , pending a n a p p e a l , o n e who, upon a v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y o r judgment and s e n t e n c e by t h e c o u r t , was no l o n g e r presumed t o be i n n o c e n t , b u t who t h e r e a f t e r , d u r i n g t h e pendency o f t h e a p p e a l , w a s presumed t o be g u i l t y , even though he m i g h t u l t i m a t e l y succeed i n e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s i n n o c e n c e . Thus, a n a p p e a l , o r c e r t i f i c a t e of r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t o r p r o b a b l e c a u s e , h a s been h e l d t o have no e f f e c t o n , and n o t t o a v o i d t h e vacancy i n o f f i c e of-- * * *". S e e , a l s o , P e o p l e v. McGuane, 1 3 I11.2d 520, 150 N.E.2d I n S t a t e e x r e l . Anderson v . Fousek, 91 Mont. 448, 456, 457, 8 P.2d 791, t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : " * * * I t may be s a i d i n p a s s i n g t h a t t h e proceedi n g s b e f o r e t h e p o l i c e commission, under t h e circums t a n c e s , were i d l e and u s e l e s s . * * * The a c t i o n of t h e mayor i n permanently d i s c h a r g i n g r e l a t o r was a l s o u n n e c e s s a r y t o h i s e f f e c t i v e removal. B y f o r c e of t h e s t a t u t e , h i s o f f i c e became v a c a n t upon h i s conviction of t h e felony. * * * " T h i s c a s e w a s l a t e r o v e r r u l e d i n p a r t i n Melton v . Oleson, 165 Mont. 4 2 4 , 530 P.2d 466, a s t o t h e h o l d i n g t h a t t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t h e o f f e n s e as t o f e l o n y o r misdemeanor was t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e law o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n where t h e c o n v i c t i o n w a s had was c o n t r o l l i n g , n o t t h e law o f Montana. The C o u r t i n t h e l a t t e r c a s e h e l d t h a t i t was t h e law of Montana which c o n t r o l s and n o t t h e law o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n where t h e c o n v i c t i o n was had. T h i s p o r t i o n of t h e Anderson o p i n i o n i s n o t i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a u s e . It i s our holding t h a t t h e appeal does not s t a y t h e f o r f e i t u r e of t h e o f f i c e . Turning now t o t h e m a t t e r of whether o r n o t t h i s C o u r t can s t a y such f o r f e i t u r e . Defendants a s s e r t t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o a s t a y of t h e f o r f e i t u r e of o f f i c e by v i r t u e of s e c t i o n 95-2406, R.C.M. 1947. While t h i s s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s t h a t a s t a y may be g r a n t e d pending an a p p e a l i n c a s e s of d e a t h s e n t e n c e , imprisonment, f i n e and p r o b a t i o n , it c o n t a i n s no such provision with r e s p e c t t o f o r f e i t u r e of o f f i c e . Defendants c o n t e n d t h a t w e s h o u l d a d o p t a s t r i c t cons t r u c t i o n o f t h e words " f i n a l judgment" c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 94-7-401(4), a s amended, and t h a t a p u b l i c o f f i c e r s h o u l d n o t be compelled t o v a c a t e h i s o f f i c e u n t i l t h e " f i n a l judgment" on h i s a p p e a l . W do n o t a c c e p t s u c h c o n t e n t i o n . e Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., provides i n p a r t : "A p a r t y a g g r i e v e d may a p p e a l from a judgment o r o r d e r , e x c e p t when e x p r e s s l y made f i n a l by law, i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e s : " ( a ) From a f i n a l judgment e n t e r e d i n a n a c t i o n o r s p e c i a l p r o c e e d i n g commenced i n a d i s t r i c t c o u r t , o r b r o u g h t i n t o a d i s t r i c t c o u r t from a n o t h e r c o u r t o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e body." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) Rule 7 , M.R.App.Civ.P., i n p a r t provides: " ( c ) N s t a y o f p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l be allowed o upon a judgment o r o r d e r which a d j u d g e s t h e defendant g u i l t y of usurping, o r intruding i n t o , o r unlawfully holding public o f f i c e , c i v i l o r m i l i t a r y , w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e ; o r which g r a n t s a w r i t of mandamus, o r of p r o h i b i t i o n , a g a i n s t a t r i b u n a l , corporation, public o f f i c e r , o r board, commanding c e r t a i n a c t s t o be done which o u g h t t o be done by such t r i b u n a l , c o r p o r a t i o n , p u b l i c o f f i c e r , o r b o a r d , and n o t i n v o l v i n g t h e payment o r a l l o w a n c e o f money o r i t s e q u i v a l e n t . " S e c t i o n 95-2404, R.C.M. 1947, i n p a r t p r o v i d e s : n " ( a ) A a p p e a l may be t a k e n by t h e d e f e n d a n t o n l y from a f i n a l judgment of c o n v i c t i o n , and o r d e r s a f t e r judgment which a f f e c t t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e d e f e n d a n t . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) These s e c t i o n s of o u r s t a t u t o r y law s p e l l o u t t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y of t h e s t a t e and o n l y i n e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h o u l d t h i s Court invoke t h e a u t h o r i t y g r a n t e d by Rule 6 2 ( g ) , M.R.Civ.P. Such c i r c u m s t a n c e s do n o t e x i s t i n t h i s m a t t e r . Nor s h o u l d w e suspend t h e r u l e s a s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 95-2402, R.C.M. 1947. I n view o f what h a s been h e r e t o f o r e s t a t e d it i s o u r c o n s i d e r e d o p i n i o n t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e i s a u t o m a t i c upon conv i c t i o n and i n t h i s c a u s e i t s h o u l d n o t b e s t a y e d . The r e l i e f s o u g h t by t h e d e f e n d a n t s i s t h e r e f o r e d e n i e d . L e t remittitur issue forthwit rn ' i / J W e concur: h , , B o n e J a c k Green, D i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n place of M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s . / i -------------Chief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.