STATE v SHULTS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13143 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1975 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs , DANIEL MARCUS SHUT,TS Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P e t e r G, Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Robert 3 . Yunck argued, Townsend, Montana F o r Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Thomas Dowling, County A t t o r n e y , Helena, Montana C h a r l e s A. Graveley, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted : December 10, 1975 Filed : JfiV 7 4976 Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether a Montana district court retains jurisdiction of a criminal case in which the state amends an Tnformation charging a single felony to one charging only a lesser included misdemeanor. This appeal was submitted on an agreed statement of fact pursuant to section 95-2408 (d), R.C.M. 1947 : "On June 3, 1975, a one count Information was filed in the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Lewis and Clark, charging the defendant, Daniel Marcus Shults, with the offense of Theft, Arraignment was set for June 6, 1975. 894-6-302(1) (a), R.C.M. 1947, a felony.4 At the arraignment, upon motion of Deputy County Attorney Charles A. rave$, the Informa- tion was amended to charge the Defendant with the offense of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, 594-6-305, R.C.M. 1947, a misdemeanor. The Defendant was then arraigned in the District Court and plead guilty to the misdemeanor. Upon questioning by the Court, Defendant acknowledged his awareness that by entering such a plea he was risking the full punishment of imprisonment in the County Jail for a term not to exceed six (6) months, or a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or both. Whereupon the Court accepted Defendant's plea of guilty and sentenced him to serve a term of six (6) months in the Lewis and Clark County Jail. "On June 9, 1975, the Defendant filed a motion in the District Court to set aside the judgment of conviction and to dismiss the amended Information on the grounds that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the misdemeanor offense charged. The motion was briefed, a hearing was held and the District Court denied Defendant's motion on July 9, 1975. On July 17, 1975, Defendant filed a notice appealing the denial of said motion t o t h e Supreme C o u r t of t h e S t a t e of Montana." The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l c r i m i n a l c a s e s amounting t o a f e l o n y ( A r t . V I I , S e c t i o n 4 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ) and " * * * of a l l p u b l i c o f f e n s e s n o t o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d f o r " ( s e c t i o n 95-301, j u s t i c e c o u r t has R.C.M. 1947). The " * * * such o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a s may b e p r o v i d e d by law" ( A r t . V I I , S e c t i o n 5 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ) which j u r i s d i c t i o n i n c l u d e s " * * * a l l misdemeanors p u n i s h a b l e by a f i n e n o t e x c e e d i n g f i v e hundred d o l l a r s ($500.00) o r i m p r i s o n m e n t n o t e x c e e d i n g s i x ( 6 ) months, o r b o t h such f i n e and imprisonment * * *" S e c t i o n 95-302, (subject t o exceptions not pertinent h e r e ) . R.C.M. 1947. Here t h e o r i g i n a l c h a r g e c a r r i e d a p e n a l t y o f imprisonment up t o t e n y e a r s ( s e c t i o n 94-6-302(4)) and was c l e a r l y a f e l o n y b e c a u s e of t h e p o t e n t i a l s e n t e n c e . 1947. S e c t i o n 9 4 - 1 - 1 0 5 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. The amended c h a r g e c a r r i e d a p e n a l t y o f a f i n e up t o $500 o r imprisonment i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l f o r a t e r m n o t e x c e e d i n g s i x months ( s e c t i o n 94-6-305(2), demeanor. R.C.M. Section 94-2-101m, 1947) and was c l e a r l y a m i s - R.C.M. 1947. The misdemeanor h e r e i s a lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e i n t h e felony. S e c t i o n 95-1711 (1)( b ) ( i ) R.C.M. , 1947. Unauthorized u s e of t h e a u t o m o b i l e i s t h e common e l e m e n t i n b o t h t h e o r i g i n a l c h a r g e and t h e amended c h a r g e , t h e former r e q u i r i n g t h e a d d i t i o n a l e l e m e n t o f a n i n t e n t o r p u r p o s e t o d e p r i v e t h e owner o f h i s property. Cf. s e c t i o n 94-6-302 (1)( a ) , R.C.M. 6-305 (1) R.C.M. , 1947, and s e c t i o n 94- 1947. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e it i s conceded t h a t had t h e amended c h a r g e been f i l e d o r i g i n a l l y , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t would have had no s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c r i m e . But b e c a u s e t h e o r i g i n a l c h a r g e was a f e l o n y , t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a t t a c h e d a t t h e commencement of t h e a c t i o n . Was t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n d i v e s t e d when t h e s t a t e l a t e r amended t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t o c h a r g e o n l y a lesser i n c l u d e d misdemeanor? I t h a s been h e l d i n a s i m i l a r c a s e from a n o t h e r j u r i s - d i c t i o n t h a t where t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s invoked by a n i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g f e l o n y t h e f t , i t i s n o t l o s t by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t a t e subsequently reduces t h e charge t o a lesser i n c l u d e d misdemeanor t h e f t . S.W.2d Bruce v . T e x a s , ( T e x a s 1 9 6 7 ) 419 646. W e c o n s i d e r t h i s a sound r u l e . Here t h e p a r t i e s c o n c e d e t h a t where a d e f e n d a n t i s c h a r g e d w i t h a f e l o n y , t r i e d by j u r y , and c o n v i c t e d o f a lesser i n c l u d e d misdemeanor, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t does n o t l o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h i s conforms t o t h e a p p l i c - a b l e g e n e r a l r u l e which h a s been s t a t e d i n 2 2 C.J.S. C r i m i n a l Law, S 169: " A s a g e n e r a l r u l e , where t h e c o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e crime f o r which a c c u s e d i s i n d i c t e d , sometimes by r e a s o n o f s t a t u t e , i t i s n o t l o s t i f on t h e e v i d e n c e h e i s c o n v i c t e d o f a crime o f a n i n f e r i o r g r a d e o f which i t would n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o r i g i n a l l y * * *." W e see no d i f f e r e n c e i n p r i n c i p l e o r r e s u l t where t h e s t a t e amends t h e o r i g i n a l c h a r g e p r i o r t o t r i a l , and t h e d e f e n d a n t p l e a d s g u i l t y t o t h e lesser included o f f e n s e . I f the rule w e r e o t h e r w i s e , t h e c o u r t o f o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n would l o s e i t s a b i l i t y t o conclude t h e c a s e with a j u s t r e s u l t . The o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e f u s i n g t o s e t a s i d e t h e c o n v i c t i o n and d i s m i s s t h e amended i n f o r m a t i o n i s a f f i r m e d . 1 &chief Justice Justice
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.
