Opinion
DA 23-0284
08-15-2023
CITY OF MISSOULA, Plaintiff and Appellee. v. BAGENDABANGA MUGONDOZI. Defendant and Appellant.
ORDER
Bagendabanga Mugondozi appeals the Fourth Judicial District Court's order reversing the Municipal Court of Missoula's dismissal of his criminal case. The State moves to dismiss Mugondozi's appeal because it is not taken from a final judgment of conviction as required by § 46-20-104(1), MCA. Mugondozi objects.
The Municipal Court dismissed Mugondozi's case "in the furtherance of justice." The State appealed to the District Court. Concluding that the Municipal Court abused its discretion, the District Court reversed the dismissal and remanded to the Municipal Court for further proceedings. Mugondozi immediately appealed the District Court's decision to this Court.
The State argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction over Mugondozi's appeal because, quoting §46-20-104. MCA. "[a]n appeal may be taken by the defendant only from a final judgment of conviction and orders after judgment which affect the substantial rights of the defendant." The State maintains that the order dismissing Mugondozi's case was not a "final judgment of conviction" because, according to § 46-1-202(11), MCA, it does not constitute "an adjudication by a court that [Mugondozi] is guilty or not guilty."
Acknowledging that a "final judgment is necessary' for a criminal defendant to appeal." Mugondozi responds that the State "overlooks" the effect of the dismissal in Municipal Court, which he characterizes as "the practical equivalent" of finding Mugondozi "not guilty." He reasons that the Municipal Court's order of dismissal effectively was a final judgment within the definition of §46-1-202(11), MCA. Mugondozi argues that the District Court's order, therefore, was entered after final judgment and affected Mugondozi's substantial rights, allowing him to appeal to this Court under § 46-20-104(1), MCA. '
M. R. App. P. 6(2), provides that "appeals may be taken in criminal cases as' provided in sections 46-20-103 and -104." Under § 46-20-104(1), MCA, an appeal by a criminal defendant may be taken "only from a final judgment of conviction and orders after judgment which affect the substantial rights of the defendant." We dismiss appeals for lack of jurisdiction when "the defendant's guilt or innocence ha[s] not been determined." State v. Reeder, 2004 MT 244, ¶¶ 5-6, 323 Mont. 15, 97 P.3d 1104 (citing City of Billings v. Whalen, 242 Mont. 293, 299, 790 P.2d 471, 475 (1990)) (other citations omitted). In Reeder, we dismissed the appeal sua sponte because "Reeder does not currently stand convicted of a criminal offense and no final judgment of conviction has been entered. Instead, the District Court reversed and remanded his case to the Municipal Court for a new trial." Reeder, ¶ 7. •
Mugondozi attempts to differentiate his case from our precedent, arguing that the Municipal Court's dismissal of his case was a final judgment because it is the "practical equivalent" of finding him not guilty. To support his theory, Mugondozi cites to State v. Willis, 2008 MT 293, 345 Mont. 402, 192 P.3d 691, maintaining that his case is different from situations where the State appeals something more minor than a dismissal, such as a decision to suppress evidence. Willis is not on point. That case involved the State's appeal following a justice court order suppressing evidence. Under the law in effect at the time, we concluded that the State's appeal to district court must proceed as a trial de novo. Willis, ¶ 24. Under current law, however, district courts have appellate jurisdiction over questions of law decided by a municipal court. Section 3-6-110(1), MCA.
A final judgment of conviction "means a judgment or sentence entered upon a guilty or nolo contendere plea or upon a verdict or finding of guilty rendered by a legally constituted jury or by a court of competent jurisdiction authorized to try the case without a jury." Section 46-1-202(7), MCA. Mugondozi has not distinguished his situation from our precedent dismissing a defendant's appeal in a criminal case without such a final judgment. See Reeder, ¶ 6 (citing Whalen, 242 Mont, at 299, 790 P.2d at 475). Further, despite Mugondozi's argument that forcing him to return to Municipal Court "would waste judicial resources," it is possible that Mugondozi proceeds to trial in the Municipal Court and is found not guilty.
We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Mugondozi does not currently stand convicted of a criminal offense and no final judgment of conviction has been entered. If Mugondozi's case is brought to us after a final judgment of conviction, we may review the District Court's decision to reverse the Municipal Court's dismissal pursuant to §46-20-104(2), MCA ("any alleged error objected to which involved the merits or necessarily affects the judgment" may be considered "upon appeal from a judgment").
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the State's motion is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice to Mugondozi's right to appeal any final judgment of conviction.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record.