STATE v SEADIN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14573 I N THE S P E E COURT O THE STATE OF MIIWANA UR M F 1979 STATE: O M)NTANA, F Plaintiff and Respondent, ERNEST SEADIN, ~efendantand Appellant. District Court of the Third Judicial District, Honorable Fbbert J. Boyd, Judge presiding. Appeal f m : Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Byron Boggs argued, Anaconda, Wntana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Mntana Richard Larson argued, Assistant Attorney General, H e l e n a , Wntana Ted L. Mizner argued, County Attorney, Deer Lodge, Wntana Subnitted: _. . .. s . _\ Filed : i 4 - . March 12, 1979 J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. Mr. On September 1 4 , 1 9 7 8 , d e f e n d a n t moved t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , P o w e l l County, f o r a n o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e I n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d a g a i n s t him b e c a u s e o f t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana t o comply w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on D e t a i n e r s . Sec- t i o n s 95-3131 t h r o u g h 95-3132, R.C.M. 31-101 t h r o u g h 46-31-102 The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion. MCA. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s 46- On O c t o b e r 2 , 1978, d e f e n d a n t was found g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e of escape. H e appeals. On A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 7 7 , d e f e n d a n t e s c a p e d from t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n w h i l e s e r v i n g c o n c u r r e n t t e r m s of f i v e and s e v e n y e a r s imposed i n J a n u a r y 1975. H e was a r r e s t e d i n C o l o r a d o on a n o t h e r c h a r g e i n August 1977 and s u b s e q u e n t l y convicted. While a t t h e Denver County j a i l a w a i t i n g d i s - p o s i t i o n o f t h e C o l o r a d o c h a r g e , d e f e n d a n t was s e r v e d w i t h a d e t a i n e r c h a r g i n g him w i t h e s c a p e from t h e Montana S t a t e Prison. H e was s u b s e q u e n t l y t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e C o l o r a d o S t a t e P r i s o n a t Canyon C i t y b u t a p p a r e n t l y t h e p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s w e r e n o t n o t i f i e d of t h e outstanding d e t a i n e r . Because t h e d e t a i n e r was n o t f o r w a r d e d t o t h e p r i s o n , t h e p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s would n o t a i d d e f e n d a n t i n p r o c e s s i n g t h e d e t a i n e r . Defendant t h e n sought t h e a i d of a n o t h e r inmate a t t h e Colorado i n s t i t u t i o n . A m o t i o n f o r q u i c k and s p e e d y t r i a l was d r a f t e d a n d , on F e b r u a r y 23, 1 9 7 8 , d e f e n d a n t s e n t c o p i e s o f t h e motion t o t h e C l e r k of t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r Powell County, t h e Warden o f t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , and t h e County A t t o r n e y f o r P o w e l l County. i l o l o r e s Munden, s u p e r v i s o r o f r e c o r d s a t t h e I~Iontana S t a t e prison, subsequently t e s t i f i e d t h a t she received a copy of t h e m o t i o n a l o n g w i t h a copy o f d e f e n d a n t ' s C o l o r a d o commitment on March 2, 1978. D e f e n d a n t was r e t u r n e d t o Montana on F r i d a y , 3larch 2 5 , 1978, and a n I n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g him w i t h e s c a p e was f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on t h e f o l l o w i n g Thursday. May 1 5 . The m a t t e r was s c h e d u l e d f o r t r i a l o n The t r i a l was r e s c h e d u l e d f o r J u l y 1 7 , a n d t h e n r e s c h e d u l e d a g a i n f o r September 1 9 . No r e a s o n f o r t h e continuances appears i n t h e record. On September 6 , c o u n s e l were n o t i f i e d t h a t t h e Septemb e r 1 9 t r i a l s e t t i n g had been v a c a t e d . Defendant responded by moving t o d i s m i s s t h e I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t h e had n o t r e c e i v e d a prompt d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c h a r g e a s r e q u i r e d by t h e I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on D e t a i n e r s . m o t i o n was d e n i e d . The D e f e n d a n t was t r i e d on O c t o b e r 2 , 1 9 7 8 , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 210 d a y s o r s e v e n months a f t e r d e f e n d a n t had n o t i f i e d t h e o f f i c i a l s o f h i s d e s i r e t o b e t r i e d on t h e escape charge. The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o dismiss t h e I n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g him w i t h e s c a p e p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on D e t a i n e r s . D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t h e s h o u l d h a v e been t r i e d w i t h i n t h e n e x t " t e r m of c o u r t " a f t e r h i s n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e S t a t e o f Montana. H e a r g u e s t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o b r i n g him t o t r i a l w i t h i n t h r e e months v i o l a t e s t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e a I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on ~ e t a i n e r s s a d o p t e d i n Montana. d The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e Agreement on ~ e t a i n e r s o e s n o t a p p l y where a p r i s o n e r ' s t r a n s f e r t o t h e r e c e i v i n g s t a t e i s n o t f o r t h e p u r p o s e of e f f e c t i n g a prompt d i s p o s i t i o n of u n t r i e d c h a r g e s t h e r e and i s n o t t o b e f o l l o w e d by t h e p r i s o n e r ' s r e t u r n t o t h e sending s t a t e . The S t a t e g o e s on t o argue t h a t defendant's request d i d n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y comply w i t h t h e Agreement's r e q u i r e m e n t s b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t i n c l u d e a c e r t i f i c a t e from Colorado a u t h o r i t i e s s t a t i n g " t h e term of [ h i s ] commitment, t h e t i m e s e r v e d and t h e t i m e r e m a i n i n g t o be s e r v e d , t h e amount of good t i m e d e f e n d a n t may have e a r n e d , and d e f e n d a n t ' s p a r o l e s t a t u s . " Finally, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s a speedy t r i a l q u e s t i o n and t h a t under t h e f a c t s of t h e c a s e , t h e r e was no d e p r i v a t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o a speedy t r i a l . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t r e c e n t l y a d d r e s s e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on D e t a i n e r s i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Mauro ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 436 U.S. 56 L Ed 2d 329. 340, 98 S . C t . 1834, Noting t h a t t h e agreement h a s been a d o p t e d by 46 s t a t e s , t h e C o u r t went on t o s t a t e t h e f o l l o w i n g : ... "The Agreement i s designed ' t o encourage t h e e x p e d i t i o u s and o r d e r l y d i s p o s i t i o n of c h a r g e s [ o u t s t a n d i n g a g a i n s t a p r i s o n e r ] and det e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r s t a t u s of any and a l l d e t a i n e r s b a s e d on u n t r i e d i n d i c t m e n t s , informaA r t . I. I t prescribes t i o n s , o r complaints.' p r o c e d u r e s by which a member S t a t e may o b t a i n f o r t r i a l a p r i s o n e r i n c a r c e r a t e d i n a n o t h e r memb e r j u r i s d i c t i o n and by which t h e p r i s o n e r may demand t h e speedy d i s p o s i t i o n of c e r t a i n c h a r g e s pending a g a i n s t him i n a n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . In e i t h e r c a s e , however, t h e p r o v i s i o n s of -e Agree- th ment a r e t r i g g e r e d o n l y when a ' d e t a i n e r ' i s --f i l e d with t h e c u s t o d i a l (sending) S t a t e b -y y another S t a t e ( r e c e i v i n g ) having u n t r i e d charges pending a g a i n s t t h e p r i s o n e r ; t o o b t a i n temporary c u s t o d y , t h e r e c e i v i n g S t a t e must a l s o f i l e a n appropriate ' r e q u e s t ' with t h e sending S t a t e . " (Emphasis added.) 436 U . S . a t 343-44, 98 S . C t . a t 1838, 56 L Ed 2d a t 336. ... The p r o v i s i o n s of t h e agreement, t h e r e f o r e , b i n d t h e r e c e i v i n g s t a t e when t h e d e t a i n e r i s f i l e d . Two q u e s t i o n s a r i s e a t t h i s p o i n t . The f i r s t i s whe- t h e r d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r speedy t r i a l s u b s t a n t i a l l y complied w i t h t h e requirements o f t h e A c t . W e find t h a t it did. I n Rockmore v . S t a t e ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 21 Ariz.App. 388, 519 P.2d 877, t h e A r i z o n a Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d a s i m i l a r i s s u e . The s t a t e had a r g u e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p e t i t i o n was i n c o m p l e t e b e c a u s e i t was n o t accompanied by a c e r t i f i c a t e a s r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e I11 and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had n o t had t h e s e n d i n g s t a t e , C a l i f o r n i a , o f f e r t o d e l i v e r t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y a s r e q u i r e d by A r t i c l e V. The c o u r t found no m e r i t i n t h e s e a r g u m e n t s b e c a u s e t h e o f f i c i a l s of t h e s e n d i n g s t a t e a r e r e q u i r e d t o s e n d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e and a n o f f e r o f custody. R e l i e f s h o u l d n o t b e d e n i e d a d e f e n d a n t when o f f i c i a l s o f t h e s e n d i n g s t a t e f a i l t o comply w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s t o which t h e y a r e bound. 879. Rockmore, 519 P.2d a t I I n s o finding, t h e c o u r t c i t e d ~ r t i c l e X of t h e Agreement which p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t l h i s a g r e e m e n t s h a l l b e l i b e r a l l y construed s o a s t o e f f e c t u a t e i t s purposes." I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e it appears t h a t defendant d i d a l l t h a t h e c o u l d do t o comply w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Agreement. The S t a t e i n v o k e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Agreement by l o d g i n g t h e d e t a i n e r a n d by o b t a i n i n g c u s t o d y o f d e f e n d a n t i n accordance w i t h t h e Agreement's p r o v i s i o n s . W e find, t h e n , t h a t under t h e circumstances of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , d e f e n d a n t ' s s u b s t a n t i a l compliance w i t h t h e Agreement's p r o c e d u r e i n v o k e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Agreement. The second q u e s t i o n w e must a d d r e s s c o n c e r n s t h e meani n g of t h e phrase "next t e r m of c o u r t " a s it appears i n A r t i c l e I11 o f M o n t a n a ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e Agreement. The Agreement a s a d o p t e d i n most s t a t e s p r o v i d e s : ". . . h e s h a l l b e b r o u s h t t o t r i a l w i t h i n o-- e - - -- nhundred e i g h t y d a y s a f t e r h e s h a l l h a v e c a u s e t o b e d e l i v e r e d t o t h e p r o s e c u t i n g o f f i c e r and t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t of t h e p r o s e c u t i n g o f f i c e r s j u r i s d i c t i o n w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h e p l a c e of h i s i m p r i s o n m e n t and h i s r e q u e s t f o r a f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n t o b e made o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t , i n f o r m a t i o n o r complaint (Emphasis a d d e d . ) A r t . 111, I n t e r s t a t e Agreement on D e t a i n e r s . - - . . ." Montana's v e r s i o n s u b s t i t u t e s t h e p h r a s e " a t t h e n e x t t e r m o f c o u r t " f o r t h e u n i f o r m a c t ' s p h r a s e " w i t h i n one hundred e i g h t y days." T h i s s u b s t i t u t e d p h r a s e h a s n e v e r been con- s t r u e d by t h i s C o u r t . D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 93-315, s e c t i o n 3-5-401 MCA, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now defines t h i s phrase: "The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f e a c h c o u n t y which i s a j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t by i t s e l f h a s no terms, a n d m u s t b e a l w a y s open f o r t h e t r a n s a c t i o n o f b u s i n e s s , e x c e p t o n l e g a l h o l i d a y s and n o n j u d i c i a l d a y s . Juries for t h e t r i a l o f c a u s e s must b e c a l l e d by t h e judge a s - -c h I n ea o f t e n as t h e p u b l i c b u s i n e s s r e q u i r e s . d i s t r i c t where - -rtwo o more c o u n t i e s a r e u n i t e d t h e j u d g e t h e r e o f m u s t f- - -t e r m o f c o u r t - -c h i n ea -- i x t h e c o u n t y i n h i s d i s t r i c t , and t h e r e m u s t b-a t l e a s t e -f o u r t e r m s - - e a- i n e a c h c o u n t y . Any o r d e r of t h e a y- r judge of such d i s t r i c t f i x i n g t e r m s of c o u r t s h a l l b e f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e c l e r k of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n e a c h c o u n t y o f h i s d i s t r i c t , and s h a l l remain i n e f f e c t u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e judge; provided, t h a t nothing i n t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be construed t o prevent t h e c a l l i n g of a s p e c i a l t e r m o f c o u r t , w i t h o r w i t h o u t a j u r y , when i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e p r e s i d i n g j u d g e t h e same i s n e c e s s a r y . The d i s t r i c t j u d g e may a d j o u r n a t e r m o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n o n e c o u n t y t o a f u t u r e day c e r t a i n , and i n t h e meantime h o l d c o u r t i n a n o t h e r c o u n t y . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) D e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t s i n c e " t h e r e must b e a t l e a s t f o u r t e r m s a y e a r " e a c h t e r m m u s t b e t h r e e months i n l e n g t h . The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e d e f i n i n g t e r m s o f c o u r t does n o t r e q u i r e t e r m s t o be of equal length. Thus, t h e requirement of four t e r m s could conceivably be s a t i s f i e d i n a d i s t r i c t w i t h t h r e e t e r m s of one day and one t e r m of 362 days. A problem would a r i s e i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s p h r a s e a s a p p l i e d t o a c o u n t y which i s a j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t by i t s e l f i n t h a t , according t o t h e s t a t u t e , such a d i s t r i c t "has no terms." But i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , c o u n s e l f o r t h e S t a t e a d m i t t e d d u r i n g o r a l argument t h a t t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t c o m p r i s e s more t h a n one c o u n t y and h a s t e r m s , though t h e length of t h e t e r m s i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t . The S t a t e a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was n o t t r i e d w i t h i n t h e n e x t t e r m of c o u r t a f t e r h e had s u b m i t t e d h i s r e q u e s t f o r d i s p o s i t i o n . A r t i c l e V ( c ) o f t h e Agreement p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t part: ". . .. . i n t h e e v e n t t h a t an a c t i o n on t h e . information on t h e b a s i s of which t h e det a i n e r h a s been lodged i s n o t b r o u g h t t o t r i a l w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d s p r o v i d e d by t h i s a c t , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n where t h e . . . information . h a s been pending s h a l l e n t e r a n o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e same w i t h p r e j u d i c e and any d e t a i n e r based t h e r e o n s h a l l c e a s e t o b e o f any f o r c e o r e f f e c t . " ... .. Therefore, defendant's conviction i s reversed. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s i n s t r u c t e d t o e n t e r an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g w i t h p r e j u d i c e t h e information charging defendant with escape. W concur: e s h i e f Justice,, Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell, specially concurring: I concur in the result on the ground that institutional delay chargeable to the state denied defendant his right to a speedy trial. Chief 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.
