State v. St. Germain ( 2018 )

03/06/2018
DA 16-0767
Case Number: DA 16-0767
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2018 MT 41N
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
JOEL ST. GERMAIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC-03-159
Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Joel St. Germain, Self-Represented, Deer Lodge, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Tammy K Plubell, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
William Fulbright, Ravalli County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 7, 2018
Decided: March 6, 2018
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, 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 Joel St. Germain (St. Germain) appeals pro se from the Twenty-First Judicial
District Court’s denial of his motion requesting good time credit be applied to his
sentence. We affirm.
¶3 On October 21, 2003, St. Germain was charged by Information with four counts of
incest and four counts of sexual intercourse without consent. The Information alleged
these crimes occurred between June 1998 and May 2003. In June 2004, a jury convicted
St. Germain of all eight counts. On November 4, 2004, St. Germain was sentenced to a
100-year commitment to the Montana State Prison with twenty-five years suspended on
each of the eight counts, with each count to run concurrently with the others.
¶4 St. Germain appealed his conviction, and this Court affirmed it on February 6,
2007. State v. St. Germain, 2007 MT 28, 336 Mont. 17, 153 P.3d 591. St. Germain filed
a petition for postconviction relief, which was dismissed by the District Court on March
17, 2011. This Court affirmed the dismissal on April 17, 2012. On September 8, 2015,
St. Germain applied for review of his sentence. On November 12, 2015, the Sentence
Review Division denied his late application. On November 7, 2016, St. Germain filed a
2
nunc pro tunc motion. On November 15, 2016, the District Court denied St. Germain’s
motion. St. Germain appeals to this Court, arguing he is entitled to good time credit
pursuant to § 53-30-105, MCA.
¶5 We review a district court’s decision on a nunc pro tunc order for abuse of
discretion. State v. Winterrowd, 1998 MT 74, ¶¶ 14, 17, 288 Mont. 208, 957 P.2d 522.
The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order to modify or amend a judgment is to make the
record reflect what was actually decided and intended by the district court. Winterrowd,
¶ 14. The alleged error “must be apparent on the face of the record to insure that the
correction does not in effect set aside a judgment actually rendered nor change what was
originally intended.” Winterrowd, ¶ 14 (quoting State v. Owens, 230 Mont. 135, 138, 748
P.2d 473, 474 (1988)).
¶6 Before it was repealed in 1997, § 53-30-105, MCA, enabled an inmate to receive
good time allowances that operated as a credit toward his or her sentence. St. Germain
argues he should be given good time credit because the Information, jury’s Verdict, and
District Court judgment all note that he began sexually abusing his step-daughter when
she was eleven years old, which would have been in 1994 and before § 53-30-105, MCA,
was repealed. Therefore, St. Germain argues § 53-30-105, MCA, applies in his case.
However, St. Germain was never charged for an offense that occurred prior to 1998. In
the Information filed on October 21, 2003, the State lists the charges against St. Germain.
The earliest date listed is on “or about or between June 1, 1998 and August 31, 1998.”
Section 53-30-105, MCA, does not apply in St. Germain’s case because it was repealed
before St. Germain was even charged. The District Court clearly intended to include
3
information regarding St. Germain’s step-daughter’s age for purposes of giving context to
the actual charged offenses, and not to support non-existent 1994 charges. The District
Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied St. Germain’s nunc pro tunc motion.
¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion
of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear
application of applicable standards of review.
¶8 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
4