State v. Herman

No. 04-353
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 92NSTATE 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