June 16 2009
DA 08-0344
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2009 MT 208N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
RONALD ALLEN CLARK,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DC 08-146
Honorable Edward P. McLean, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Edmund F. Sheehy, Jr., Regional Deputy Public Defender, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Micheal S. Wellenstein,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney; Matt Lowy, Deputy
County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 20, 2009
Decided: June 16, 2009
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris 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. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Appellant Ronald Allen Clark (Clark) appeals following his conviction for driving
under the influence of alcohol. We affirm.
¶3 The State charged Clark in Missoula County Justice Court with driving under the
influence of alcohol (DUI), a misdemeanor, in violation of § 61-8-401, MCA, and operating
a motor vehicle without proof of liability insurance, a misdemeanor, in violation of § 61-6-
302, MCA. A jury in the justice court found Clark guilty on both counts. The justice court
sentenced Clark to 60 days in the Missoula County Detention Facility.
¶4 Clark filed a notice of appeal of his justice court conviction to the District Court. The
District Court conducted a jury trial. Clark entered a guilty plea to operate a motor vehicle
without proof of liability insurance before the trial in District Court. The District Court
accepted his plea. The jury in the District Court also found Clark guilty of DUI.
¶5 The District Court conducted a sentencing hearing at which the State recommended a
30-day sentence, Clark’s completion of the ACT program, and a $300 fine. The State and
the District Court engaged in the following discussion regarding the State’s sentencing
recommendation in the justice court:
COUNSEL: Additionally, Judge, it is, also, consistent.
2
While the State recommended thirty days in a previous case, in the
Justice Court, the Justice of the Peace imposed a sentence of sixty days’ jail,
the State is referring back to its original recommendation to this Court.
While this is an Appeals [sic] De Novo, that is not binding on the
Court, the State believes that it is important for the Court to note, in light of
the requirement of consistency.
Your Honor, I would refer this Court to -
COURT: The Justice Court imposed a sixty-day jail term?
COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honor. That was the original sentence.
The State recounted for the court Clark’s extensive history of driving offenses. The District
Court sentenced Clark to six months in jail, with all but thirty days suspended. The court
also ordered Clark to pay a $300 fine and to complete the ACT program. In imposing his
sentence, the court noted that “it might be one thing to feel like you’re playing a game with
the justice system, but it’s a total other thing when you start putting people in the community
at risk.” Clark appeals.
¶6 Clark argues on appeal that the District Court violated his right to a trial de novo
when it considered the proceedings in the justice court when imposing its sentence. Clark
cites to the State’s comments regarding the sentence that it had requested in justice court and
the sentence imposed by the justice court. He further cites to the District Court’s comment
in imposing its sentence that Clark was “playing a game with the justice system” by
appealing to the District Court.
3
¶7 The question of whether Clark has been provided his constitutional statutory right to a
trial de novo presents a question of law. State v. Stedman,
. We review a district court’s conclusions of law to determine whether they are
correct. Stedman, ¶ 7. We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I,
Paragraph 3(d), of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, that provide for
memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs before us that the District
Court correctly applied well settled Montana law to the facts of this case.
¶8 Affirmed.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM RICE
4
