State v. Jones

No. 01-135
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2002 MT 170N
STATE OF MONTANA
Plaintiff/Respondent,
v.
PERCIE LEE JONES,
Defendant/Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula,
The Honorable Ed McLean, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Percie Lee Jones, Missoula, Montana (pro se)
For Respondent:
Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant
Montana Attorney General, Helena, Montana; Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula
County Attorney, Dale Mrkich, Deputy Missoula County Attorney, Missoula,
Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 31, 2002
Decided: July 30, 2002
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating
Rules, 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 Percie Lee Jones (Jones) was convicted on two counts of Criminal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
He was sentenced to two five-year terms to be served consecutively, with all time suspended upon
compliance with specified conditions. Jones appeals. We affirm.
ISSUES
¶3 We will not restate the issues presented by Jones because the determinative issue in this case
is whether Jones properly appealed the District Court order in compliance with the Montana Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
¶4 The factual and procedural background of this case will only be briefly presented as it is
irrelevant to this Court's ruling. In early spring 1998, Jones and a companion, on three separate
occasions, sold marijuana to undercover agents working with the Montana Narcotics Investigation
Bureau (MNIB). In September 1999, the State filed an Information against Jones for three counts of
Criminal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. Jones' trial took place on September 5, 2000. The jury found
Jones not guilty of Count I and guilty of Counts II and III. Jones was sentenced to five years for
each Count, to be served consecutively. The entire ten-year sentence, however, was suspended
contingent upon compliance with specific conditions. Jones appeals his sentence to this Court,
2
alleging District Court error on each of the nine issues presented in his appellate brief. He seeks
reversal of the District Court's sentence and dismissal of the charges against him.
DISCUSSION
¶5 It is unnecessary to restate Jones' issues because this appeal must be dismissed for Jones'
failure to comply with the prescribed rules of appellate procedure. The Montana Rules of Appellate
Procedure (Rules) govern the procedure for appeals to this Court in civil and criminal cases. They
are designed to ensure that the parties to an appeal present their cases in a manner that provides the
Court with the necessary information to render an informed, legally correct ruling, and to facilitate
fairness and judicial economy. While recognizing the importance of the Rules, the Court,
nonetheless, attempts to make accommodations for parties appearing pro se and is willing to relax
technical requirements as long as the fundamental factual and legal basis for the appeal is
discernable. As always, however, a district court's decision is presumed correct and it is the
appellant who bears the burden of establishing error by that court. Matter of M.J.W., 1998 MT 142,
¶ 18, 289 Mont. 232, ¶ 18, 961 P.2d 105, ¶ 18 (citations omitted). In this case, Appellant Jones has
failed to meet even the relaxed standards of acceptable Rules' compliance.
¶6 The fatal flaw in Jones' briefs to this Court is his failure to present a concise, cohesive
argument supported with citations to legal authority as required by Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P.
Under Rule 23(a)(4), an appellate brief must contain a succinct, clear and accurate summary of the
arguments posited by the party. A reasoned argument must follow this summary and contain the
contentions of the appellant with respect to each issue presented with citations to the authorities,
statutes and pages of the record relied upon. Jones failed to meet his burden in this regard.
¶7 Jones presented nine issues in his brief, followed by a twenty-six page statement of the facts
3
and the case which was difficult to comprehend and lacked necessary specificity. The "Statement of
the Facts" was followed by a one-half page combined "Summary of the Argument" and "Argument"
that failed to address any of the enumerated issues. The State justifiably complained that it was
impossible to legitimately or intelligently address Jones' claims as presented by his brief. Failure to
substantially comply with the Rules results in dismissal of the appeal. While dismissal is a harsh
result, it is nonetheless necessary when failure to comply with the Rules results in an appellate filing
that can neither be comprehended by this Court or realistically responded to by the opposing party.
See Whitefish v. Hansen (1989), 237 Mont. 105, 771 P.2d 976.
¶8 It is not this Court's obligation to conduct legal research on a party's behalf, to locate
authorities or formulate arguments for an appealing party, to guess as to a party's precise position, or
to develop legal analysis that may lend support to a party's position. In re Marriage of Snow, 2002
MT 143, 2002 Mont. LEXIS 244 (citations omitted); In re B.P., 2001 MT 219, ¶41, 306 Mont. 430,
¶41, 35 P.3d 291, ¶41 (citation omitted). An utter failure to comply with the Rules is fatal to an
appeal. State v. Blackcrow, 1999 MT 44, ¶ 33, 293 Mont. 374, ¶ 33, 975 P.2d 1253, ¶ 33.
Accordingly, we dismiss Jones' appeal for failing to comply with the Montana Rules of Appellate
Procedure and affirm the District Court.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JIM REGNIER
/S/ JIM RICE
4