Opinion
OP 22-0190
06-07-2022
JARED BARTH, Petitioner, v. MONTANA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT. MISSOULA COUNTY, Honorable John W. Larson, presiding. Respondent.
ORDER
Self-represented Petitioner Jared Barth has filed a "Motion for Writ of Supervisory Control/" deemed a Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control, where he alleges several errors. In compliance with this Court's April 27, 2022 Order, the Honorable John W. Larson of the Fourth Judicial District Court and the Attorney General for the State of Montana have filed responses with excerpted portions of transcripts.
Supervisory control may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. "This extraordinary remedy can be invoked when the case involves purely legal questions and urgent or emergency factors make the normal appeal process inadequate." State v. Spady, 2015 MT 218, ¶ 11, 380 Mont. 179, 354 P.3d 590 (citing M. R. App. P. 14(3); Redding v. McCarter, 2012 MT 144, ¶ 17, 365 Mont. 316, 281 P.3d 189). "The case must meet one of three additional criteria: (a) [T]he other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice; (b) [Constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved; or (c) [T]he other court has granted or denied a motion for substitution of a judge in a criminal case." Spad ¶ 11 (quoting M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c)).
We summarize the provided background for Barthfs criminal cases. On July 6, 2021, the State of Montana charged Barth with felony criminal mischief in the Missoula County District Court because Barth had been accused of breaking seven windows at the Russell Smith Federal Courthouse. According to the affidavit, Barth explained that he did not trust "the Feds" and alleged that the government was surveilling him. Law enforcement arrested Barth, and the Justice Court set bond at $25,000. Barth posted bond two days later, and he was released on pre-trial supervision. Less than a week later, Barth was arrested for a robbery charge. The Justice Court set his bond at $100,000, ordering that he be screened for the pretrial supervision program. Barth contends that upon a completed mental health evaluation, Barth was deemed fit to proceed in his two pending criminal cases. He states that he met with Dr. Scolatti on September 30, 2021, "[a]s seen in the report." He claims that he is fit to proceed, pursuant to § 46-14-221(1), MCA. Barth contends that he is now required to undergo a second evaluation at the Montana State Hospital.
Both the District Court and the State put forth that Barth's Petition should be denied because he has not shown that the District Court is operating under a mistake of law, causing a gross injustice. M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a), The District Court and the State provide a detailed background, and that, for the purpose of Barth's claims, no written report, pursuant to § 46-14-206, MCA, was submitted after September 30, 2021, for consideration. The District Court points out that Barth retains the remedy of an appeal. The State also reiterates this point and that Barth has not presented a purely legal question for review.
The District Court explains that its decision is supported by the record and Montana statutory authority. The court points out that it has held many hearings on this issue and that the court "plays a role in fitness to proceed" determinations, pursuant to § 46-14-221, MCA. The court states that at a September 30, 2021 hearing, Barth's counsel informed the court that her client, Barth, opposed a mental health evaluation and that Barth requested new counsel. The court continued the matter to October 28. At the October 28 hearing, Barth's counsel told the court that Barth was fit to proceed per Dr. Scolatti's evaluation and fitness was not an issue. The District Court relays that, after inquiry about the report, Barth's counsel stated that she had not provided a copy to the State who opposed Barth's release. At the continued November 3 hearing, Barth's counsel provided a redacted email from Dr. Scolatti, whereupon the court determined that the "one-line conclusion was insufficient[.]" The District Court then scheduled a hearing for all parties and Dr. Scolatti to provide testimony.
At the November 19, 2021 hearing, the District Court provides that Dr. Scolatti was sworn and testified about Barth's fitness. Dr. Scolatti concluded that Barth was fit to proceed. Barth interjected that he wanted a new attorney. The court explains that it relayed . to Barth he could not proceed pro se until, further evaluation was completed because the evaluator had not provided a report, only an email followed by testimony. The court points to this Court's earlier decision where we denied Barth's first petition for supervisory control because Barth presented no legal question for review, among other reasons. See Barth v. Fourth Judicial District Court, No. OP 22-0072, Order (Mont. Feb. 22, 2022). The court concludes that this matter is one where deference applies to the underlying court's determinations' of fact.- State v. Davis, 2016 MT 102, 383 Mont. 281, 371 P.3d 979., The State provides that Barth erroneously assumes that his brief examination with Dr. Scolatti on September 30, 2021, as well as Dr. Scolatti's preliminary assessment satisfies the definition of a "report of the examination ...." Section 46-14-206(1), MCA. The State puts forth that the District Court correctly ordered an "examination and report, "' - pursuant to §§ 46-1.4-202(1) and 46-14-206(1), MCA. The State concludes that Barth's Petition should be denied.
We conclude that supervisory control is not warranted here because none of the 1 criteria have been met. Both the District Court and the State provide the context for Barth and his proceedings. Barth has misunderstood the results of the preliminary visit with Dr. Scolatti; he has not had a mental health evaluation under Montana law. Contrary to his allegations, it is in Barth's best interests to have a mental health evaluation where a complete written report can be entered into the record for the court's consideration. Barth retains the remedy of appeal upon conclusion of his underlying proceedings.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Barth's Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the Honorable John A. Larson, Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County; to Shirley Faust, Clerk of District Court, Missoula County, under Cause Nos. DC-21-371 and DC-21-414; to counsel of record; to Stephanie McKnight, Defense Counsel; to Jaime Upham, Defense Counsel; and to Jared Barth personally.