No. 82-167 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and A~pellant, vs . WILLIAM PRZYBYLOWICZ, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Ravalli Honorable James R. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Robert B. Brown, County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana For Respondent: Smith, Connor and Van Valkenberg, Missoula, Montana Fred Van Valkenberg, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: September 30, 1982 Decided: December 9, 1982 PER CURIAPI: On October 7, 1961, a jury convicted defendant, W i l l i a m P r y z b y l o w i c z and h i s w i f e , Heidi, of criminal m i s - c h i e f and a r s o n . D e f e n d a n t , B i l l P r y z b y l o w i c z , o r a l l y moved at the November 27, 1981, sentencing hearing t o have h i s v e r d i c t s s e t a s i d e and t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t h i m s e l f d i s m i s s e d for lack of sufficient evidence to support the verdicts. The c o u r t t o o k d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t a n d p r o - ceeded t o s e n t e n c e each defendant t o e i g h t y e a r s i n p r i s o n and suspended t h e s e n t e n c e s . In order to be properiy before the District Court, d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n s h o u l d h a v e b e e n made p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 46-16-702(2), MCA, m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . That s e c t i o n re- q u i r e s t h a t such a motion be i n w r i t i n g , be s p e c i f i c regard- i n g t h e g r o u n d s t h e r e f o r , b e made w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s f o l l o w - i n g t h e v e r d i c e and t h a t r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e o f t h e m o t i o n b e given the State. None o f t h o s e r e q u i r e m e n t s w e r e met h e r e . The m o t i o n t o dismiss t h e c h a r g e s and s e t a s i d e t e h v e r d i c t s against B i l l Pryzbylowicz was made o r a l l y , fifty-seven days after e n t r y of the verdicts. l\lo n o t i c e o f t h e m o t i o n was g i v e n the State. Therefore, d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n was n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , and t h e c o u r t s h o u l d n o t h a v e r u l e d on i t . I t is i r r e l e v a n t t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o complain of the procedural process employed by d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o the S t a t e ' s appeal t o t h i s Court. The p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r was s u c h t h a t t h e motion s h o u l d n e v e r have been b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The January 26, 1982, order of the Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t Court is vacated. T h i s case i s remanded t o t h a t court for reinstatement of the jury verdict against defendant.