Sirucek v. State , 2012 MT 203N ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                         September 11 2012
    DA 12-0152
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    2012 MT 203N
    WILLIAM JOSEPH SIRUCEK,
    Plaintiff and Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF MONTANA, MIKE MAHONEY,
    MIKE FERRITER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    START PROGRAM, CONNECTIONS CORRECTIONS
    PROGRAM, BUTTE PRE-RELEASE, JOHN DOES 1-3,
    MONTANA STATE PRISON,
    Defendants and Appellees.
    APPEAL FROM:            District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DV 11-659
    Honorable Robert L. Deschamps, III, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    William J. Sirucek (self-represented), Butte, Montana
    For Appellee:
    Thomas G. Bowe, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Bureau,
    Helena, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: August 8, 2012
    Decided: September 11, 2012
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), 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     William Joseph Sirucek (Sirucek) appeals pro se from a final judgment entered by the
    Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, granting the State’s motion for judgment on
    the pleadings. We affirm.
    ¶3     On May 23, 2007, Sirucek was convicted of felony DUI and related misdemeanors,
    and sentenced by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, to the Department of
    Corrections (DOC) for a period of 13 months, followed by a consecutive, suspended five-
    year sentence to Montana State Prison. Sirucek fully discharged the 13-month DOC
    commitment on March 4, 2008, and began serving his five-year suspended prison sentence.
    On September 24, 2008, the District Court found Sirucek in violation of the conditions of his
    probation. It revoked his suspended sentence and committed him to the DOC for four years.
    Sirucek was released on probation on July 30, 2009. On May 26, 2010, the District Court
    found that Sirucek again violated his conditions of probation and imposed a four-year
    commitment to the DOC. Sirucek is currently incarcerated at the Montana State Prison.
    ¶4     On February 17, 2011, Sirucek filed a motion for credit for time served. The District
    Court denied the motion on March 18, 2011, emphasizing that the court already awarded
    Sirucek all of the jail time credit that he was entitled in a prior court order. The District
    2
    Court concluded Sirucek’s discharge date, as calculated by the MSP Records Department,
    was June 21, 2013, and that he was “not entitled to receive any further jail time credit.”
    ¶5     Then, on May 19, 2011, Sirucek filed a complaint for false imprisonment against the
    State of Montana, several of its political subdivisions and individual State officials. Sirucek
    argued that he was falsely imprisoned for a period of 314 days, although was unclear about
    which specific periods of his incarceration were allegedly unlawful. Further, he sought an
    “immediate release” from the Montana State Prison. The State answered and moved for a
    judgment on the pleadings. Relying on the District Court’s judgments of September 24,
    2008 and May 26, 2010, the State argued that Sirucek’s incarceration was judicially
    authorized. Additionally, it pointed to the District Court’s March 18, 2011 order to stress
    that Sirucek was not entitled to any additional jail time credit and his discharge date is June
    21, 2013.
    ¶6     In his response to the State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Sirucek altered
    his initial argument and asserted that his false imprisonment took place between October 29,
    2008 and July 30, 2009, amounting to a total period of nine months and one day. He further
    argued he was not awarded full credit for time served and that his correct discharge date is in
    September of 2012 rather than on June 21, 2013. On February 23, 2012, the District Court
    granted the State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding Sirucek’s tort claim of
    false imprisonment failed because his incarceration was judicially authorized as a matter of
    law. Sirucek timely appealed.
    3
    ¶7     A motion for judgment on the pleadings is decided as a matter of law. Ritter v. Bill
    Barrett Corp., 
    2009 MT 210
    , ¶ 10, 
    351 Mont. 278
    , 
    210 P.3d 688
    . We therefore review the
    District Court’s decision for correctness. Ritter, ¶ 10 (citing Nelson v. Barlow, 
    2008 MT 68
    ,
    ¶ 9, 
    342 Mont. 93
    , 
    179 P.3d 529
    ). The pleadings must be construed in the light most
    favorable to the nonmoving party, whose allegations are taken as true. Ritter, ¶ 10 (citing
    Nelson, ¶ 9). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is appropriate “when all material
    allegations of fact are admitted or not controverted in the pleadings and only questions of
    law remain to be decided by the district court.” Firelight Meadows, LLC v. 3 Rivers
    Telephone Coop., Inc., 
    2008 MT 202
    , ¶ 10, 
    344 Mont. 117
    , 
    186 P.3d 869
    . Additionally, we
    generally afford pro se litigants a certain amount of latitude. Greenup v. Russell, 
    2000 MT 154
    , ¶ 15, 
    300 Mont. 136
    , 
    3 P.3d 124
    .
    ¶8     After reviewing the record, we conclude the District Court’s decision to grant the
    State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was correct. Sirucek contends he was falsely
    imprisoned from October 29, 2008 to July 30, 2009. In order for a plaintiff to succeed on a
    false imprisonment claim he must show there was an unlawful restraint. Hughes v. Pullman,
    
    2001 MT 216
    , ¶ 21, 
    306 Mont. 420
    , 
    36 P.3d 339
    . On September 24, 2008, the District Court
    committed Sirucek to the DOC for a period of four years. During the next several months he
    was placed in a variety of correctional programs and facilities including the START
    program, Connections Corrections, the Butte Pre-Release Center, and the Montana State
    Prison. Sirucek argues that because the District Court did not specifically order he be placed
    in these particular programs and facilities his incarceration during this time was unlawful. A
    4
    DOC commitment may involve placement at appropriate community-based programs in pre-
    release centers, intensive supervision programs, the Treasure State Correctional Training
    Center, or a prison sentence. State v. Strong, 
    2009 MT 65
    , ¶ 21, 
    349 Mont. 417
    , 
    203 P.3d 848
    . Sirucek’s DOC commitment between October 29, 2008 and July 30, 2009, was
    therefore judicially authorized.
    ¶9       Sirucek further argues the District Court failed to award him with the appropriate
    amount of credit for time served while on probation and that his correct discharge date is
    September 23, 2012 rather than June 21, 2013. Although it is somewhat unclear which
    specific probation period Sirucek seeks credit for, he asserts that because he was given a
    four-year sentence in September of 2008 he “should in fact be released in September of
    2012.” We can therefore presume Sirucek believes he is entitled credit for his period of
    probation that began on July 30, 2009. The District Court gave Sirucek credit for time
    served while incarcerated, however did not grant him any credit for time served while in a
    probationary status. When a suspended sentence is revoked, it is within a district court
    judge’s discretion to reject credit for time served on probation. Section 46-18-203(7)(b),
    MCA. Sirucek offers no legal authority to support his claim for credit due to his time served
    on probation and we conclude he failed to meet his burden of proving error by the District
    Court.
    ¶10      Therefore, because Sirucek’s DOC commitment was judicially authorized and all
    entitled credit for time served awarded, the District Court did not err in granting the State’s
    motion for judgment on the pleadings.
    5
    ¶11   We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our
    Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions.
    ¶12   Affirmed.
    /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
    We Concur:
    /S/ MIKE McGRATH
    /S/ JAMES C. NELSON
    /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
    /S/ JIM RICE
    6