KNUTSON v STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 83-540 I TEE SUPREME COURT Or TIE STATE OF MOTITANA : ? 1984 PATRICIA A. KNUTSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsTIIF: STATL OF MONTANA, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Bonorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. COUEJSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: J. V. Barron argued, Great Palls, Montana For Respondent: Sarah M. Power argued, Agency Legal Services Bureau, GeLena, Montana - -- -- Submitted: Decided: Clerk June 6 , 1984 June 28, 1994 - --- - - -- Patricia A. granted by XCnutson eppa1.s from a summary jmdcjrnent the Di.st.ric:t- Court, Eighth J i i d i c i . a I D,is.kri.~t:~ Cascade County, against. her claim for d.arnaqes for il.?ccynl imprisonment ,i.n the Montana State Prison -for' A peri.rrd of 274 days. Rnutson w a s convicted or, a guilty pi.c?a to a felony charge of issiiing a bad c h e c k in the Cascade C0unt.y District Courk on J u l y 13, 1979, and was grantc?d a dceferred sentence? for a period of t h r e e years and placed on probat.ion, On December 16, 1 9 8 1 Rnutson was convicted of forgery on a guilty plea in tho District Court, TweI.fth Judicial. Dist.rj.ct-, Hi.13. Coilnty, a n 3 was sentenceci to 5 year.: i.11 prison with the execution elf the entire 5 years scr?t:eaice suspeniieil. Rased or the forgery conviction Knut-son's probation officer filed the rondi,ti.oris of her deferred 3 in Hi1 l County, report of viol a t i n n of sentrenco and attorney o f Casca2e County on February 1 6 , : .the county 1982 iil.et1 a petition I-o revoke K l P ; n ' s deferrc??d senfimci?, Fnl lowi.ng o nx:o revocation hearincy, Knutsonk d.eferred sentence was revoked on A p r i l 26, 1982 and she was sentenccxi to s e l n e 5 year:; irr prisor:. .'In t h e meanthe, this Court had held on February 3, 1981, in Crist: v. St.Rep. 150, Secjria (Monk. 1901), 622 I"2d that section 53-30-105, MCA, 1020, -38 then in cffcct, speci f i c d l y reyuirod that parolees be cri.cli.l:edfor good ti..me while on parol.e, subject to determinal:ion of good behavior and cernpl.i.ant:r w i t h the .r-ul.t?s by the pri.son warden and t i l e Department of Insti.tutions, In two ~inpubl.i.shed cases, Miller atrii S t a k e v, Gray ( 81-565 8 N o 9 v. SSat..e ( 1 9 R 2 ) r NO. 82-1.64, we rli.rectec3 +he I)c?pa,rtment o-F 1ns.l-itxtionsto credit goncW.irnc nl.lowances to on defendnnt.:s were sentences where the serving a suspended or deferred probatiim while sentence, relying on our holding in Crist, supra. on Crist and the unpubliished cases, w e granted Xa.;eii post-con'iri.r.tien re:i.i.ef to Knutnon and ordered h c r reieiisci At khc t i m e o f revocn"iio of from a c u s . t o d i a i instit:ution. her dei'rrred sentence on April 26, 3.982, she had accuniulated sufficient qeod time credit on prohnl-.iciri that her deferred sentence wornlri haw: beeti f"ul'1.y served. she was entitled t o The state aqreed thn-r: rel.ea.;e under our c;iecisions. She was released on January 24, 1 9 8 3 . Xmitson i.n the D , i . s f - i i c t : Court a g a i n s t Z : . c d this s u i t : :i?i the s k a t e , cl.aimi.nqt h a t he-r i.mprisonmenl: rrnm May 5, 1982 t : o January 24, 19133 w a s i 1 : l c ~ c j a l . Wer arriendec? complaint aLl.eges l:.ha"rhc District Court acted as the a g e n t of the stafi. in revoking her d e f e r r e d sentence. There i.5 a c?isp~sit:ivestatute w t i l i c h con-trois t l i ; s i t . .?r u.: In section 2-9-112, MCA, . it is provj~ded: . inrmurie i a from r . suit for acts or omissions of: the .I" The sentence imposed upon Knutson For her violation of parn1.e was a judicial act. Const., Artic1.e 11, S 1.8, 1972 Mnnt. provides t h a t the stake sha1.l have no immuni.ty from suit o r injury to person or pr0perf.y unless specifical1y providcl by a i.aw pas.;ed bv a two t h i r d s v o t c o f each house o f t h e Legislature. immim i t y . Secti.cn 2-9-1 12, MCA, provides such a n 111 that gnantiiig summary judgment ( J e c i ~ i . o n s , csprxiii2.l.v o w District: .the held C;ray, s u p r a , in that Court had p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n o n l y , and d i d n o t a p p l y . t o K u u t s o n k d e f e r r e d s c n t e r i c e e n t e r e d ea:rli.er or1 S e p t e m b e r !0 , 1 9 7 9 ; ancl t h a t t h e r e f o r e t h e pc?tifj.on t o r e v o k e h e r deferurc? s e n t e n c e s t a t a s w a s t i m e l y "il.eci wi.thi.n t h e t h r e e - y e a r I n e f f e c t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . f ounii 4.ha.t deferred sentence. it jurisdicticn had had al-though o u r o-t:lrerwi se p e r i o d o:F t h e decision in to rcvokc releasing Xnutson's Knutson sentence, would i.ndi.cote . T h e r e i s n o need f o r s e m a n t i c s i n t h i s c a s e , h o w e v e r . The i.~nniui\itystz3tut.e a p p l e s t o j u d i c i a i a c t s w i t h n o s t a t e d limitati-on, i t a p p l i e s t o p r o t e c t t h e s t a t e and governmental,. a g e n c i e s w h e n e v e r t h e j u d i c i a l . power o f t h e s t a t e 5.s p u t t o u s e i n a -jut"lici.al ;tcti.orr. Di.strj-ct Court its result s i g h t - r e s u : l t- j.n can Althouqh .the r e a s o n g i v e n by t h e granting be appeJ.'l a t e sununary sustai.neci rule. judgment i.mder Feryus was the incorrect, wrong-yeason, County v. 0sweiie.r (l938), 1 0 7 M n n t . 4 6 6 , 8 6 P.Zd 4 1 0 . X n u t s o n a r g u e s o n a p p e a l that t h e i m m u n i t y s t a t u t e d o e s not apply here hecause the Department of Institutions b r e a c h e d its d u t y tc determine t h e good t i m e t o w h i c h s h e w a s e n t i t l e d and t.o not.i.fy t h e Di.strict C o u r t a c c o r d i . n g l y . She c o s t t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court i.n t h i s c a s e a c t e d o n l y as the v e h i c l e tlirtouah whi.eh ,the h a r m c a u s e d by t h e D e p a r t m e n t T h a t argument is a sul~stantj.n1 nf I n s t i t x t i o n s a f f e c t e d her. c h a n g e o f t h e o r y f r o m h e r e a r 3 . i e r complaint i n t h i s c a s e , y e t it avai 1.s K n u t s o n courts, not by the nethiny. Sentences Department s e n t e n c i n g was tiir? r e s u l t of of are pronounced 1nstit:utions. a judiciril act, by Kmltson's Further, the immunity s t a t - v t e prot~"~4:s g n v e r n m e n t a l itcjcsicy invol.vc?d :in any the j u d i c i a l act of s i e n t e n c i n g . Affirund. We Concur:

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.