STATE EX REL MAIER v CITY COURT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-168 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MO!JTANA STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel., LLOYD SCOTT MAIER, a Minor, and ROBERT P. MORIN, his attorney, Petitioners, THE CITY COURT OF THE CITY OF BILLINGS, COUNTY OF YELLOWSTONE, HONORABLE DONALD E. BJERTNESS, A JUDGE THEREOF, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Petitioners: Berger Law Firm, Billings, Montana Robert Morin, Billings, Pontana For Respondents: Donald E. Bjertness, Billings, Montana Peterson, Schofield and Leckie, Billings, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: & u G 2 0 1982 July 16, 1982 August 20, 1982 M r . J u s t i c e John Court. Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e O p i n i o n of the T h i s is a p e t i t i o n by t h e m i n o r , L l o y d S c o t t Maier, and h i s counsel, Robert P. f o r a w r i t of Morin, appropriate writ. On F e b r u a r y 4 , 1982, other W e grant supervisory control o r the the petitioner, petition and deny. L l o y d S c o t t Maier, was i s s u e d a n o t i c e to a p p e a r on a c o m p l a i n t of f a i l u r e to d r i v e i n a The c o m p l a i n t was i s s u e d by o f f i c e r c a r e f u l and p r u d e n t m a n n e r . Dewayne Ness, a p o l i c e o f f i c e r employed by t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s . He was not to required appear until F e b r u a r y 11, 1 9 8 2 . The p e t i t i o n e r , Maier, a p p e a r e d o n t h e e l e v e n t h day b e f o r e t h e C i t y Court of the respondent City of Judge, Billings, Donald County of Bjertness. E. Yellowstone, the At time of his He replied a p p e a r a n c e , he was a s k e d i f he had a p a r e n t w i t h him. t h a t he d i d n o t before and J u d g e B j e r t n e s s d i r e c t e d him t o l e a v e t h e c o u r t r o o m , g o t o a p h o n e p r o v i d e d f o r him and c a l l h i s p a r e n t s to A f t e r some t i m e h e r e a p p e a r e d i n t h e h a v e them a p p e a r w i t h him. c o u r t r o o m , and i n d i c a t e d t o J u d g e B j e r t n e s s t h a t h i s p a r e n t s would n o t a p p e a r w i t h him and he would h a v e t o a p p e a r by h i m s e l f . A f t e r being told that t h e p a r e n t s would not him, appear with Judge B j e r t n e s s a c c e p t e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s p l e a o f g u i l t y and f i n e d him in the amount o f The m o t o r $45. impounded a f t e r p e t i t i o n e r t h e $45. vehicle he w a s driving was t o l d t h e c o u r t t h a t he d i d n o t have I n a d d i t i o n t o impounding t h e car he w a s d r i v i n g , the p e t i t i o n e r , Maier, was r e q u i r e d t o t u r n i n h i s Montana d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e to t h e c o u r t . Petitioner hired having entered the counsel plea t o withdraw h i s p l e a of i n February 1982, and through counsel s i x days filed a after motion g u i l t y w i t h a memorandum i n s u p p o r t to the c i t y court. At both appearances, the petitioner, Maier, was age s e v e n t e e n , b o r n on J u l y 25, 1964. Two Morin, months later the petitioner r e q u e s t i n g a withdrawal of appeared with t h e p r e v i o u s p l e a of counsel, guilty. A f t e r e v i d e n c e was h e a r d , J u d g e B j e r t n e s s e n t e r e d a w r i t t e n o r d e r denying the p e t i t i o n e r ' s m o t i o n to w i t h d r e w t h e p l e a of g u i l t y . The the court A t issued t h e t i m e of order i n t e l l i g e n t l y and 1 3I h e was u n a b l e youth, understandingly e n t e r a p l e a of a s a m i n o r , as a matter of argued t h a t , 1 98 2 . h i s a p p e a r a n c e on A p r i l 1 2 , 1982, p e t i t i o n e r t h a t as a seventeen-year-old contended May on law, t o appear without p a r e n t and/or guilty. to He he was i n c o m p e t e n t an attorney i n entering h i s plea of guilty. The r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e , withdrawal of city court the plea, on a i n h i s May 1 3 w r i t t e n o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e stated t h a t a juvenile appearing i n the traffic citation does not have the right to a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l and f o u n d i t was u n n e c e s s a r y to h a v e a p p o i n t e d counsel present when one c o n s i d e r s t h e r e was no p r o v i s i o n f o r i n c a r c e r a t i o n o f a j u v e n i l e upon h i s e n t r y of a p l e a o f g u i l t y o r a conviction relative to The s o l e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d request is w h e t h e r a m i n o r a minor traffic violation. t o t h i s C o u r t by t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s is i n c o m p e t e n t to a p p e a r i n a c i t y c o u r t on t h e c h a r g e o f f a i l i n g t o d r i v e i n a c a r e f u l and p r u d e n t manner without a parent, guardian or attorney and r i g h t i n o r d e r t o e n t e r i n t o a v a l i d p l e a of g u i l t y . waive his The p e t i - t i o n e r a r g u e s Judge B j e r t n e s s f a i l e d to f o l l o w t h e clear mandates o f s e c t i o n 41-5-511, MCA, s e c t i o n 61-12-601, case o f Edward v. C o l l i n g s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 38 St.Rep. In Mont and o u r r e c e n t MCA, . -- 1 6 3 2 P.2d 325, 1240. Edward, supra, this Court a writ considered of habeas c o r p u s o n b e h a l f o f a m i n o r who had e n t e r e d a p l e a of g u i l t y of illegal possession of alcohol, where the court sentenced the m i n o r t o a f i n e o f $50 and t e n d a y s i n t h e P o w e l l C o u n t y j a i l to be s e r v e d on weekends. A s here, t h e y o u t h w a s unaccompanied b y a p a r e n t o r c o u n s e l a t t h e t i m e o f t h e p l e a and p e t i t i o n e r a l l e g e d that he requested plea, the entering a but admitted the possession right that of to such speak to request two c a n s o f his was beer. father denied before after he This Court held t h a t t h e Montana Y o u t h C o u r t A c t , t h r o u g h 41-5-924 is s e c t i o n s 41-5-101 applied. However, Chapter 5, supra, illegal and there the present possession w a s imposed. violation an of important case. alcohol, d i s t i n c tion The v i o l a t i o n where a n be t w e e n Edward i n Edward w a s a n incarceration sentence I n t h i s case t h e c h a r g e was o n l y t h a t of a t r a f f i c without an imposition of any incarceration. Here, t h e r e was no p o s s i b i l i t y o f a n y j a i l t i m e b e i n g g i v e n as p a r t of t h e s e n t e n c e a c c o r d i n g to o u r l a w . W e f i n d t h a t n e i t h e r t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Montana Y o u t h C o u r t A c t a p p l y n o r is t h e Edward case d e t e r m i n a t i v e of t h e issue presented to us. Under t h e p r o v i s i o n of 61-12-601, MCA, t h e c i t y c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e m a t t e r , and t h e p e n a l t i e s prescribed and ordered by t h e c o u r t were w i t h i n the authority granted. "Unlawful o p e r a t i o n by minor o f c o u r t s --- p e n a l t i e s . --- jurisdiction "(1) The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s and t h e j u s t i c e s ' c o u r t s o f t h e s t a t e and t h e m u n i c i p a l and c i t y c o u r t s o f c i t i e s and towns s h a l l h a v e conc u r r e n t o r i g i n a l j u r s i d i c t i o n i n a l l proceedings concerning t h e unlawful operation o f m o t o r v e h i c l e s by c h i l d r e n u n d e r t h e a g e of 18 years. Whenever, a f t e r a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , it s h a l l be f o u n d t h a t a c h i l d u n d e r t h e age of 1 8 y e a r s h a s u n l a w f u l l y o p e r a t e d a m o t o r v e h i c l e , t h e c o u r t may: "(2) "(a) impose a f i n e , n o t e x c e e d i n g $ 5 0 , p r o v i d e d s u c h c h i l d s h a l l n o t be i m p r i s o n e d f o r f a i l u r e to pay such f i n e ; "(b) r e v o k e t h e d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e of such c h i l d , or s u s p e n d t h e same f o r s u c h t i m e as may be f i x e d by t h e c o u r t ; and "(c) o r d e r a n y motor v e h i c l e owned o r o p e r a t e d by s u c h c h i l d t o be impounded b y t h e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r f o r such t i m e , n o t exceeding 6 0 d a y s , as s h a l l be f i x e d b y t h e c o u r t . However, i f t h e c o u r t s h a l l f i n d t h a t t h e o p e r a t i o n of such motor v e h i c l e w a s w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t of t h e owner, t h e n such v e h i c l e s h a l l n o t be impounded. " ( 3 ) Upon nonpayment o f a n y f i n e h e r e i n p r o v i d e d f o r , t h e c o u r t may o r d e r t h a t a n y motor v e h i c l e owned b y s a i d c h i l d o r o p e r a t e d b y s a i d c h i l d w i t h t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e owner s h a l l b e impounded u n t i l t h e f i n e s h a l l be p a i d , o r statutory may o r d e r t h a t t h e d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e of s u c h c h i l d s h a l l be t a k e n u p and h e l d by t h e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r u n t i l payment of s a i d f i n e , o r may c a u s e b o t h s a i d motor v e h i c l e and s a i d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e t o be t a k e n up and impounded u n t i l s u c h f i n e s h a l l be p a i d ; b u t no c h i l d s h a l l be c o m m i t t e d t o o r h e l d i n a n y d e t e n t i o n f a c i l i t y o r j a i l by r e a s o n of non-payment o f S e c t i o n 61-12-601, MCA. such f i n e ." w e n o t e t h a t t h e Montana Y o u t h C o u r t A c t d o e s I n addition, n o t a p p l y to t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s . S e c t i o n 41-5-511, provides MCA, as follows: to I n a l l proceedings "Right - Counsel. f o l l o w i n g t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g a delinquent youth or youth in need of s u p e r v i s i o n , t h e y o u t h and t h e p a r e n t or g u a r d i a n o f y o u t h s h a l l be a d v i s e d b y t h e c o u r t , or in absence of the court, by its r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , t h a t t h e y o u t h may be r e p r e s e n t e d by counsel a t a l l s t a g e s of the proceedings. I f c o u n s e l is n o t r e t a i n e d , or i t a p p e a r s t h a t c o u n s e l w i l l n o t be r e t a i n e d , c o u n s e l s h a l l be a p p o i n t e d f o r t h e y o u t h i f t h e p a r e n t s and t h e y o u t h are u n a b l e t o p r o v i d e c o u n s e l , u n l e s s t h e r i g h t to a p p o i n t c o u n s e l was w a i v e d by t h e y o u t h and p a r e n t or guardian.. ." T h i s s t a t u t e h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e case a t hand f o r h e r e t h e p e t i t i o n e r was i n t h e C i t y C o u r t of B i l l i n g s on a t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n , n o t as a r e s u l t o f a f i l i n g o f a p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g him t o be a d e l i n q u e n t y o u t h o r a y o u t h i n need o f s u p e r v i s i o n . Our s t a t u t e s p r o v i d e i n t h e above-quoted for t h e handling of the court further violations to handle noted that s t a t u t e , 61-12-601, by a m i n o r and t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n s of such v i o l a t i o n . the MCA, Youth I n a d d i t i o n i t s h o u l d be Court Act 41-5-203 provides: of the E x c e p t as " J u r i s d i c t i o n -- C o u r t . (1) provided i n subsection ( 2 ) , the court has exclusive jurisdiction of a l l proceedings u n d e r t h e Montana Y o u t h C o u r t A c t i n which a y o u t h is a l l e g e d t o be a d e l i n q u e n t y o u t h , a y o u t h i n need o f s u p e r v i s i o n , o r a y o u t h i n n e e d o f care o r c o n c e r n i n g a n y i n d i v i d u a l under twenty-one y e a r s of age charged w i t h h a v i n g v i o l a t e d a n y l a w o f t h e s t a t e or o r d i t a n a n c e o f a n y c i t y or town o t h e r -h- n a t r a f f i c or f i h nd to - -s -a- game v i o l a t i o n p r i o r - h a v i n g become e i g h t e e n y e a r s - -" o f age. (Emphasis supplied. ) - Having Montana found Youth that Court neither Act the apply s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s of nor is Edward, supra, the deter- m i n a t i v e o f t h e i s s u e a t h a n d , we w i l l c o n s i d e r now t h e f a c t s o f t h e case p r e s e n t e d t o u s t o see i f it meets t h e i n t e n t of our law. T h i s p r e s e n t s us with the i s s u e of whether a k n o w l e d g e a b l e w a i v e r of Maier, made the petitioner, his rights prior to t h e time which h e e n t e r e d h i s p l e a o f g u i l t y . On in the this information petition Maier, d i d , submitted appears it to that us the our consideration petitioner, Lloyd i n f a c t , make a k n o w l e d g e a b l e w a i v e r of p r i o r t o t h e t i m e he e n t e r e d t h e p l e a . any other for a s made contention, Scott his rights T h e r e is n o t h i n g t o b a s e by t h e comment t h a t h e d i d u n d e r s t a n d and know w h a t t h e l a w was i n r e g a r d to t h e r e q u i r e - m e n t s t o d r i v e a v e h i c l e i n a c a r e f u l and p r u d e n t m a n n e r . seventeen-year-old, who had b e e n g r a n t e d not As a a l i c e n s e to d r i v e a n a u t o m o b i l e , it would a p p e a r from h i s r e c o r d t h a t h e had t h e c a p a b i l i t y t o d e t e r m i n e i n h i s own mind i f h e h a d , i n f a c t , f a i l e d to c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e laws o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana. Here p e t i t i o n e r judge and, was g i v e n a n o p p o r t u n i t y b y a p p e a r w i t h him a t t h e 1982, a week t i m e h e made h i s a p p e a r a n c e . h i s notice before F e b r u a r y 11, 1 9 8 2 . t h a t n o t i c e of presiding d i r e c t e d t o c a l l h i s p a r e n t s to h a v e them in fact, viously noted, the he t o a p p e a r was was required issued to appear A s pre- on February 4 , as he did on T h i s g a v e him s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e l a y t i m e f o r h i s a p p e a r a n c e to a p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n . H e c o u l d h a v e a t t h e t i m e of h i s a p p e a r a n c e had h i s p a r e n t s w i t h h i m , o r as p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d o n t h e b a s i s of h i s t e l e p h o n e c a l l to g e t h i s p a r e n t s t h e y c o u l d h a v e b e e n w i t h him a t t h e t i m e he made h i s p l e a , and i t was o n l y a f t e r making t h e c a l l and i n f o r m i n g t h e presiding judge t h a t h i s p a r e n t s would not a p p e a r t h a t h e was a l l o w e d t o e n t e r h i s p l e a of g u i l t y . W e recognize t h a t t h e r i g h t to c o u n s e l is o n e of mental r i g h t s t h a t support j u s t i c e t h e funda- i n o u r s y s t e m and t h a t it is a r i g h t e s s e n t i a l t o m i n o r s who a r e n o t k n o w l e d g e a b l e o f fundamental r i g h t s . appear to be that However, we have i n t h e case a t h a n d , one of those cases their it d o e s n o t in which the petitioner, a minor, c o u l d c l a i m he d i d n o t know what he was d o i n g ; t h a t he d i d n o t know t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of h i s a c t ; and t h a t h e was n o t g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o have h i s p a r e n t s , g u a r d i a n s , o r a c h o s e n c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t him. I n view of t h e foregoing, we hold t h a t the p r e s i d i n g Judge, B j e r t n e s s , d i d n o t a b u s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying p e t i t i o n e r ' s right t o w i t h d r a w h i s p l e a of guilty. W concur: e Chief J u s t i c e , ' Justices g u i l t y and enter a plea of not

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.