State v. Province

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Sol

    936 P.2d 307 (Mont. 1997)   Cited 10 times
    Concluding that the State was not obligated to deliver results of a test performed on a breathalyzer because the defendant was aware of the tests and the State had made the results available to him "for examination and reproduction"

    [4] We have strictly construed ยง 46-17-311, MCA, against the State when it failed to perfect an appeal. See State v. Province (1987), 226 Mont. 425, 426, 735 P.2d 1128, 1129. The plain language of ยง 46-17-311, MCA, requires the justice court to transfer the entire record of the court of limited jurisdiction to the district court.

  2. State v. Arthur

    761 P.2d 806 (Mont. 1988)   Cited 6 times
    In Arthur, the defendant's conviction took place on November 18 and the ten-day time limit for notice of appeal fell on a Saturday.

    "(2) A party may appeal to the district court by giving written notice of his intention to appeal within 10 days after judgment, except that the state may only appeal in the cases provided for in 46-20-103." This statute is the only method by which a district court can acquire jurisdiction over an appeal from justice court. Because the right to appeal is given exclusively by statute, we have consistently held that strict compliance with Section 46-17-311, MCA, is necessary to perfect an appeal. State v. Hartford (Mont. 1987), [ 228 Mont. 254,] 741 P.2d 1337, 1338, 44 St.Rep. 1500, 1501; State v. Province (Mont. 1987), [ 226 Mont. 425,] 735 P.2d 1128, 1129, 44 St.Rep. 775, 776 Strict compliance with the statute requires that notice be given in a timely manner.

  3. State v. Clark

    346 Mont. 80 (Mont. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    This history behind the adoption of Article VII, Section 4(2), calls into question this Court's past assumption that the right to appeal from a court of limited jurisdiction to a district court is "purely statutory." In State v. Province, 226 Mont. 425, 735 P.2d 1128 (1987), in the context of addressing an appeal by the State from justice court to district court and then to this Court, we observed-without citation to any authority-that "[r]egardless of which party is appealing, this Court has consistently held that compliance with the statute is required to perfect an appeal because it is exclusively a statutory right." Province, 226 Mont. at 426, 735 P.2d at 1129 (emphasis added).

  4. State v. Rogers

    883 P.2d 115 (Mont. 1994)   Cited 6 times

    Compliance with the statute is required to perfect an appeal from a Justice Court to the District Court because an appeal is exclusively a statutory right. State v. Province (Mont. 1987), [ 226 Mont. 425,] 735 P.2d 1128; State v. Mortenson (1978), 175 Mont. 403, 574 P.2d 581. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, statutes relating to appeals are mandatory and jurisdictional and prohibitory and jurisdictional in that they limit the right of appeal to the method expressly provided by statute.

  5. State v. Hartford

    741 P.2d 1337 (Mont. 1987)   Cited 9 times
    In Hartford, we stated that the right to appeal from a court of limited jurisdiction to a district court is purely statutory and that a district court does not acquire jurisdiction absent timely compliance with ยง 46-17-311, MCA. Hartford, 741 P.2d at 1338.

    Compliance with the statute is required to perfect an appeal from a Justice Court to the District Court because an appeal is exclusively a statutory right. State v. Province (Mont. 1987), [ 226 Mont. 425,] 735 P.2d 1128, 44 St.Rep. 775, 776; State v. Mortenson (1978), 175 Mont. 403, 574 P.2d 581. Without a timely notice of appeal, the District Court does not gain jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the Justice Court. State ex rel. Graveley v. District Court (1978), 178 Mont. 1, 592 P.2d 166, State v. Frodsham (1961), 139 Mont. 222, 362 P.2d 413.