State v. Ruiz ( 2005 )

No. 04-227
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 117STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BENJAMIN P. RUIZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC 2003-57
The Honorable James A. Haynes, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Brian C. Smith, Worden Thane P.C., Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
Honorable Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Barbara C. Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana; George H. Corn, Ravalli
County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 8, 2004
Decided: May 10, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Benjamin Ruiz (Ruiz), appeals from a sentence of the Twenty-First Judicial District
Court, Ravalli County. We affirm.
¶2 We restate the following issues on appeal:
¶3 1. Did the District Court err when it suspended Ruiz’s privilege to hunt, trap, and
fish?
¶4 2. Did the District Court err when it imposed a condition on Ruiz’s sentence, which
suspended his privilege to accompany others and partake in non-game hunting?
¶5 3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in sentencing Ruiz?
BACKGROUND
¶6 In the Fall of 2002, Ruiz was charged with several misdemeanor crimes related to
hunting and fishing. On January 29, 2003, Ruiz was convicted of five charges in Ravalli
County Justice Court: Outfitting Without a License (Counts I and II), Possession of an
Unlawfully Killed Game Fish (Count III), Violation of Overlimit Regulations (Count IV),
and Possession of an Unlawfully Killed Game Animal (Count V). On March 5, 2003, Ruiz
appealed the decision to the Twenty-First Judicial District Court. On August 21, 2003, Ruiz
appeared in District Court and pled guilty to Counts I and II, but proceeded to a jury trial on
the remaining counts on September 24, 2003, and September 26, 2003. Ruiz was found
guilty on the remaining three counts and was sentenced January 15, 2004.
¶7 The District Court sentenced Ruiz for Count I to one year in jail with all but 30 days
suspended, a $1,000.00 fine with all but $500.00 suspended, a loss of hunting, trapping, and
2
fishing privileges for a period of 60 months, and restitution in the amount of $200.00. On
Count II, Ruiz received the same sentence he received under Count I, but received restitution
in the amount of $250.00. On Count III, Ruiz was sentenced to six months in jail with all
suspended, a $1,000.00 fine with all but $250.00 suspended, a loss of hunting, trapping, and
fishing privileges for 24 months, and restitution in the amount of $10.00. On Count IV, Ruiz
was sentenced to six months in jail with all suspended, a $1,000.00 fine with all but $500.00
suspended, a loss of hunting, trapping, and fishing privileges for 36 months, and restitution
in the amount of $100.00. On Count V, Ruiz was sentenced to six months in jail with all
suspended, a $1,000.00 fine with all but $500.00 suspended, a loss of hunting, trapping, and
fishing privileges for 60 months, and restitution in the amount of $300.00. The sentences
on Counts I and II were to run consecutively to one another and concurrently to the sentences
imposed on Counts III, IV, and V, which were to run consecutively to one another. The
District Court also ordered that, as a condition of his sentence, Ruiz lose his accompaniment
and non-game hunting privileges for 120 months. Ruiz now appeals from the District
Court’s sentence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8 Normally, this Court reviews a criminal sentence for its legality; that is, we determine
whether the sentence is within statutory parameters. State v. Webb, 2005 MT 5, ¶ 8, 325
Mont. 317, ¶ 8, 106 P.3d 521, ¶ 8. However, as in this case, when an offender is ineligible
for sentence review because the sentence is for less than one year in the state prison, this
3
Court reviews the sentence for both legality and abuse of discretion. State v. Herd, 2004 MT
85, ¶ 22, 320 Mont. 490, ¶ 22, 87 P.3d 1017, ¶ 22.
DISCUSSION
ISSUE 1
¶9 Did the District Court err when it suspended Ruiz’s privilege to hunt, trap, and fish?
¶10 Ruiz asserts that the District Court exceeded its statutory authority when it imposed
sanctions and conditions on him not authorized by statute and that exceeded the period of
the actual sentence allowed by law.
¶11 The State contends the District Court’s suspension of Ruiz’s hunting, trapping, and
fishing privileges for Counts I and II was authorized by § 46-18-202(1)(f), MCA, which
provides that a sentencing judge may impose, as part of a sentence, “any other limitation
reasonably related to the objectives of rehabilitation and the protection of the victim and
society.” Specifically, the State contends the District Court considered its imposition of the
condition of loss of privileges for a period of 60 months to be related to the goals of
rehabilitation and the protection of Montana’s wildlife. As to Counts III, IV, and V, the State
relies on § 87-1-102, MCA, which permits a sentencing judge discretion to impose a long
forfeiture period if the court deems it warranted.
¶12 A district court’s authority to impose a sentence is defined and constrained by statute.
Pena v. State, 2004 MT 293, ¶ 24, 323 Mont. 347, ¶ 24, 100 P.3d 154, ¶ 24 (citation
omitted). Indeed, “a district court has no power to impose a sentence in the absence of
specific statutory authority.” Pena, ¶ 24 (citing State v. Nelson, 1998 MT 227, ¶ 24, 291
4
Mont. 15, ¶ 24, 966 P.2d 133, ¶ 24). A sentence not based on statutory authority is an illegal
sentence. Pena, ¶ 24.
¶13 Ruiz was convicted under Counts I and II of Outfitting Without a License. Pursuant
to § 37-47-344(2), MCA, a person who holds himself out to the public as an outfitter and
engages in outfitting without a license is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by
a fine of no less than $200.00 or more than $1,000.00, and up to a year in the county jail, or
a combination of the two. There is no statutory provision for loss of privileges to hunt or fish
as the result of a conviction under this section.
¶14 Ruiz maintains there is no statutory provision for the imposition of a loss of privileges
under Counts I and II, as these are outfitting without a license misdemeanors, and the
sentences that may be imposed under § 37-47-344(2), MCA, are limited by the terms of the
statute to a fine and jail time only. However, Ruiz was also convicted under Counts III, IV,
and V. These violations are subject to the penalties provided for in § 87-1-102, MCA. This
statute clearly allows a district court to set the period of suspension. Section 87-1-102(1),
MCA. The statute also authorizes the suspension of an individual’s privileges for 24 months
or longer, if the court decides the infractions warrant a longer suspension. Section 87-1-
102(2)(b), MCA (emphasis added). Of significance here is that the suspension of privileges
for a period of 120 months imposed under Counts I and II was designated to run concurrently
with the suspension of privileges imposed for the same time period under Counts III through
V. Accordingly, we need not address whether the privileges were or were not subject to
suspension under Counts I and II; the practical consequence of the sentence under Counts
5
III through V is a suspension of privileges for 120 months in any event. Moreover, based
upon the facts presented to the court and the authority conferred upon the court under § 87-1-
102, MCA, we conclude that the District Court’s suspension of Ruiz’s privileges under
Counts III through V was a legal condition of Ruiz’s sentence.
ISSUE 2
¶15 Did the District Court err when it imposed a condition on Ruiz’s sentence, which
suspended his privilege to accompany others and partake in non-game hunting?
¶16 Ruiz argues that the District Court was without authority to suspend his privilege to
accompany others and partake in non-game hunting for ten years. Ruiz maintains that the
District Court cannot impose a condition past the length of two years, which is the maximum
sentence allowed by law on the underlying charges.
¶17 The District Court imposed the condition on Ruiz’s sentence that he lose his
“accompaniment, and non-game hunting privileges” for 120 months. As mentioned earlier
in this Opinion, § 87-1-102, MCA, authorizes a district court to suspend a person’s privileges
for a period set by the court and specifically authorizes “a longer forfeiture period” if the
district court determines it is warranted. In addition, § 46-18-202(1)(f), MCA, permits a
sentencing court to impose other limitations that are reasonably related to the rehabilitation
of the offender and the protection of the victim and society.
¶18 The District Court found that the objectives of the sentence would be served by
imposing these restrictions, given Ruiz’s disregard for the laws regarding hunting and taking
wildlife. There was testimony before the court from a game warden that those whose
6
privileges are suspended often accompany others and claim if questioned that they are only
accompanying and not engaging in the prohibited conduct. Precluding accompaniment
serves to prevent one from taking advantage of the ability to hunt while under suspension,
and serves to protect game animals. From the record it is clear that the District Court took
account of this testimony when imposing the non-accompaniment and non-game hunting
restrictions. Given that the District Court had discretion under § 46-18-202, MCA, to impose
reasonable conditions on Ruiz’s sentence and that a longer forfeiture period was authorized
by statute, and given the findings of the court referenced below, the District Court did not
err when it suspended Ruiz’s accompaniment and non-gaming privileges under Counts III
through V.
ISSUE 3
¶19 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in sentencing Ruiz?
¶20 Ruiz argues that the District Court abused its discretion when it imposed conditions
and penalties on Ruiz not warranted or justified by his conduct. Ruiz contends the extreme
nature and length of the conditions imposed is unreasonable and overly punitive.
Specifically, Ruiz maintains that the condition he refrain from accompaniment and non-game
hunting has little connection to his underlying offenses.
¶21 The State contends Ruiz’s sentence is clearly justified by the egregious facts and
circumstances of this case. The State points to the testimony of wardens involved in the
investigation of Ruiz to support its position.
7
¶22 An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court acts arbitrarily without
conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason. State v. Grindheim, 2004 MT 311,
¶ 16, 323 Mont. 519, ¶ 16, 101 P.3d 267, ¶ 16 (citation omitted). The evidence offered
during the trial supported the basis for the conditions and their connection to Ruiz’s
underlying offenses. The record shows Ruiz deliberately disregarded Montana’s laws
governing hunting and cannot be trusted in hunting situations. Specifically, the District
Court was influenced by the fact Ruiz attended college and majored in forestry, resource
conservation, and wildlife biology, and yet chose to deliberately disregard the hunting laws
and regulations in which he was well-versed, for money and for his personal benefit. The
court further found that Ruiz continued to rationalize that his behavior was acceptable, and
that the only way to “slow him down” was to impose significant restrictions on his ability
to engage in hunting.
¶23 After a review of the record, we cannot say the District Court acted arbitrarily without
conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason when imposing Ruiz’s sentence.
Therefore, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced
Ruiz.
¶24 Affirmed.
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
8
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
9