STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ALLISON CHAPMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Chouteau, Cause No. DC 2002-06
Honorable David B. Rice, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Allison Chapman, Geraldine, Montana, Pro Se
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jim Wheelis,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Stephen A. Gannon, Chouteau County Attorney, Fort
Benton, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 12, 2005
Decided: August 23, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included
in this Court's quarterly list of nonciteable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana Reports.
¶2 The Twelfth Judicial District Court, Chouteau County, denied Allison Chapman's
motion to stay execution of payment of fines and fees imposed in the judgment entered in
this matter. We affirm.
¶3 The issue is whether the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the
stay requested by Chapman.
¶4 The District Court entered judgment of conviction against Chapman in this case on
December 3, 2002, and we affirmed that judgment on appeal on January 13, 2004. The
judgment requires Chapman to make monthly payments on $621.55 in fines, fees and jury
expenses. On March 4, 2004, Chapman moved the District Court to stay execution of
payment for six months, pending the anticipated filings of an appeal to the United States
Supreme Court and a
action in federal district court. On July 21, 2004, the
District Court denied the motion for a stay, stating it was not well-taken because Chapman
had provided no evidence of having made any filings for relief in federal court.
¶5 The State of Montana speculates that the denial of the stay may not be an appealable
order, and Chapman fails to provide any support for the appealability of the District Court
2
order. We observe, however, that § 46-20-104(1), MCA, provides that an appeal may be
taken by the defendant in a criminal case from "orders after judgment which affect the
substantial rights of the defendant." For purposes of this case, we observe that the denial of
a motion for a stay of execution of sentence may affect a defendant's substantial rights and,
therefore, we address Chapman's appeal in this case.
¶6 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum
opinions. Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P., requires that the argument portion of a brief must
contain the appellant's contentions with citations to the authorities relied upon. Chapman
advances no authority whatsoever for the assertion of error by the District Court, as required
by Rule 23(a)(4). As a result, Chapman has not met the appellant's burden of establishing
error. See, e.g., City of Billings v. Peterson,
