Submitted on Briefs: February 7, 2018
FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC-03-159
Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Presiding Judge.
Appellant: Joel St. Germain, Self-Represented, Deer Lodge,
Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Tammy K
Plubell, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
William Fulbright, Ravalli County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana
MCGRATH CHIEF JUSTICE.
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court
Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum
opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as
precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition
shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of
noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Joel St. Germain (St. Germain) appeals pro se from the
Twenty-First Judicial District Court's denial of his
motion requesting good time credit be applied to his
sentence. We affirm.
On October 21, 2003, St. Germain was charged by Information
with four counts of incest and four counts of sexual
intercourse without consent. The Information alleged these
crimes occurred between June 1998 and May 2003. In June 2004,
a jury convicted St. Germain of all eight counts. On November
4, 2004, St. Germain was sentenced to a 100-year commitment
to the Montana State Prison with twenty-five years suspended
on each of the eight counts, with each count to run
concurrently with the others.
St. Germain appealed his conviction, and this Court affirmed
it on February 6, 2007. State v. St. Germain, 2007
MT 28, 336 Mont. 17, 153 P.3d 591. St. Germain filed a
petition for postconviction relief, which was dismissed by
the District Court on March 17, 2011. This Court affirmed the
dismissal on April 17, 2012. On September 8, 2015, St.
Germain applied for review of his sentence. On November 12,
2015, the Sentence Review Division denied his late
application. On November 7, 2016, St. Germain filed a nunc
pro tunc motion. On November 15, 2016, the District Court
denied St. Germain's motion. St. Germain appeals to this
Court, arguing he is entitled to good time credit pursuant to
§ 53-30-105, MCA.
We review a district court's decision on a nunc pro tunc
order for abuse of discretion. State v. Winterrowd,
1998 MT 74, ¶¶ 14, 17, 288 Mont. 208, 957 P.2d 522.
The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order to modify or amend a
judgment is to make the record reflect what was actually
decided and intended by the district court.
Winterrowd, ¶ 14. The alleged error "must
be apparent on the face of the record to insure that the
correction does not in effect set aside a judgment actually
rendered nor change what was originally intended."
Winterrowd, ¶ 14 (quoting State v.
Owens, 230 Mont. 135, 138, 748 P.2d 473, 474 (1988)).
Before it was repealed in 1997, § 53-30-105, MCA,
enabled an inmate to receive good time allowances that
operated as a credit toward his or her sentence. St. Germain
argues he should be given good time credit because the
Information, jury's Verdict, and District Court judgment
all note that he began sexually abusing his step-daughter
when she was eleven years old, which would have been in 1994
and before § 53-30-105, MCA, was repealed. Therefore,
St. Germain argues § 53-30-105, MCA, applies in his
case. However, St. Germain was never charged for an offense
that occurred prior to 1998. In the Information filed on
October 21, 2003, the State lists the charges against St.
Germain. The earliest date listed is on "or about or
between June 1, 1998 and August 31, 1998." Section
53-30-105, MCA, does not apply in St. Germain's case
because it was repealed before St. Germain was even charged.
The District Court clearly intended to include information
regarding St. Germain's step-daughter's age for
purposes of giving context to the actual charged offenses,
and not to support non-existent 1994 charges. The District
Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied St.
Germain's nunc pro tunc motion.
We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I,
Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which
provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled ...