State v. Herman , 2005 MT 92N ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                            No. 04-353
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2005 MT 92N
    STATE OF MONTANA,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    CLOISE HERMAN,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL FROM:         The District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. BDC 2003-512,
    Honorable Julie Macek, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Jane M. Berger, Public Defender’s Office, Great Falls, Montana
    For Respondent:
    Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Carol E. Schmidt,
    Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
    Brant Light, County Attorney; Marty Judnich, Deputy County
    Attorney, Great Falls, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: March 1, 2005
    Decided: April 19, 2005
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(i), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
    Operating Rules (Memorandum Opinions), we determine that settled Montana law clearly
    controls the legal issues raised in this appeal. Further, pursuant to Section I, Paragraph
    3(d)(v), the following decision shall not be cited as precedent but shall be filed as a public
    document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme
    Court cause number, and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to West
    Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.
    ¶2     Section 61-8-733, MCA, authorizes a district court to require a defendant, who is
    guilty of a second-offense driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI), to forfeit
    his vehicle. Cloise Herman appeals from the District Court’s rulings that that statute does
    not violate the Due Process, Equal Protection or Excessive Fines Clauses of the Montana and
    United States Constitutions. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    ¶3     A police officer stopped Herman, who was driving his 1969 Chevrolet pickup, for
    speeding and driving with an inoperable taillight. The officer charged Herman with his third
    DUI in violation of § 61-8-401, MCA; driving with a revoked license in violation of § 61-5-
    212, MCA; and his third offense for driving without insurance in violation of § 61-6-301,
    MCA. Herman entered into a plea agreement in which the State would dismiss the charge
    for driving with a revoked license, and, for the remaining charges, the prosecution would
    recommend one year in jail with all but thirty days suspended, completion of a counseling
    2
    program, payment of various fines, and forfeiture of the Chevrolet. At the change of plea
    colloquy, the Justice of the Peace Court advised Herman of his rights. Herman waived his
    rights and pleaded guilty.
    ¶4     The Justice of the Peace Court sentenced him, inter alia, to one year in jail with all
    but ninety days suspended, to a period of probation, to complete a counseling program, to
    pay various fines, and to forfeit the Chevrolet. Herman appealed his sentence to the District
    Court arguing the DUI forfeiture statute, § 61-8-733, MCA, constitutes an excessive fine,
    and violates both substantive due process and equal protection in violation of the Montana
    and United States Constitutions.
    ¶5     First, Herman claimed that the punishment requiring him to forfeit his Chevrolet is
    disproportional and “is quite harsh,” so it violates the Excessive Fines Clauses of the
    Montana and United States Constitutions. Second, he claimed that requiring him to forfeit
    his Chevrolet was both arbitrary and unreasonable, so the forfeiture statute fails the
    substantive due process rational basis test. Third, he claimed that the forfeiture statute
    violates the equal protection rational basis test because it disproportionately affects drivers
    based on the values of their vehicles. On the merits, the District Court denied Herman’s
    claims.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    ¶6     We review questions of law de novo. See State v. Dewitt, 
    2004 MT 317
    , ¶ 34, 
    324 Mont. 39
    , ¶ 34, 
    101 P.3d 277
    , ¶ 34.
    DISCUSSION
    3
    ¶7     This Court affirms district courts’ results if those results are correct even if the district
    court reached that result for the wrong reason. Schaefer v. Egeland, 
    2004 MT 199
    , ¶ 11, 
    322 Mont. 274
    , ¶ 11, 
    95 P.3d 724
    , ¶ 11. The District Court needlessly reached the merits of
    Herman’s constitutional claims. Herman waived many rights when he pleaded guilty. State
    v. Wheeler (1997), 
    285 Mont. 400
    , 402, 
    948 P.2d 698
    , 699 (“A voluntary and intelligent plea
    of guilty constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and defenses.”). In sentencing
    Herman, the Justice of the Peace Court required that he forfeit his Chevrolet. This was no
    more punitive than the sentence to which Herman agreed in his plea agreement. In agreeing
    to the sentence of forfeiture at the change of plea hearing, Herman waived his right to appeal
    that issue. The District Court properly denied his claims. We affirm.
    /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
    We Concur:
    /S/ KARLA M. GRAY
    /S/ JAMES C. NELSON
    /S/ BRIAN MORRIS
    /S/ JIM RICE
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-353

Citation Numbers: 2005 MT 92N

Filed Date: 4/19/2005

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/19/2016