State v. Reeder9/8/2004
Michael Reeder appeals from the order entered by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment and sentence entered by the Bozeman Municipal Court upon a jury verdict convicting him of the misdemeanor offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether this Court has jurisdiction to address a criminal defendant's appeal absent a final judgment of conviction.
BACKGROUND
A Bozeman Municipal Court jury convicted Reeder of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and the Municipal Court sentenced him. Reeder appealed to the District Court and submitted a brief raising 22 issues. The District Court summarily dismissed some issues and consolidated others, leaving eight issues remaining. After briefing, the District Court determined two issues were dispositive. It affirmed the Municipal Court's denial of Reeder's motion to suppress his preliminary breath test result, concluding Reeder's due process rights were not violated when an officer administered the test after reading the Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test Advisory Card (PAST). The District Court reversed Reeder's conviction and remanded for a new trial, however, determining the Municipal Court erroneously admitted the results of an Intoxilyzer breath test without proper foundation and the error was not harmless. Reeder appeals, raising the PAST issue and issues not addressed by the District Court.
DISCUSSION
Rule 1(d), M.R.App.P., provides that "[a]ppeals may be taken in criminal cases as provided in sections 46-20-103 and 46-20-104, Montana Code Annotated." Section 46-20103, MCA, allows the State of Montana to appeal from orders and judgments producing certain delineated results. Section 46-20-104, MCA, reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
(1) An appeal may be taken by the defendant only from a final judgment of conviction and orders after judgment which affect the substantial rights of the defendant. Although neither party contests this Court's jurisdiction over this case in its entirety, we may address the question of our jurisdiction sua sponte . Losleben v. Oppedahl , 2004 MT 5, 25, 319 Mont. 269, 25, 83 P.3d 1271, 25 (citation omitted).
In State v. Kaplan (1996), 275 Mont. 108, 109, 910 P.2d 240, 241, we relied on Rule 1(d), M.R.App.P., and § 46-20-104, MCA, in dismissing a criminal defendant's appeal when the district court had found the defendant not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in accordance with the parties' stipulation. We reasoned that "[b]ecause Kaplan was not convicted, there is no judgment of conviction from which to appeal."
In City of Billings v. Whalen (1990), 242 Mont. 293, 296, 790 P.2d 471, 473, a defendant was convicted of DUI in the city court and appealed to the district court. Before trial, the district court granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence based on an illegal arrest and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for an alleged violation of his right to a speedy trial. The City appealed from the grant of the suppression motion, as allowed by § 46-20-103(2)(e), MCA, and the defendant cross-appealed from the denial of his motion to dismiss. We affirmed the district court on the suppression motion issue. Whalen , 242 Mont. at 298, 790 P.2d at 475. Relying on § 46-20-104, MCA, and Rule 1(d), M.R.App.P., we dismissed the cross-appeal because the defendant's guilt or innocence had not been determined. Whalen , 242 Mont. at 299, 790 P.2d at 475.
Like the defendants in Kaplan and Whalen , Reeder does not currently stand convicted of a criminal offense and no fin
Page 1 2 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|