text:
    STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ED ROY SIDMORE, Defendant and Appellant.
    No. 97-050.
    Submitted on Briefs October 30, 1997.
    Rehearing Granted October 30, 1997.
    Decided December 18, 1997.
    54 St.Rep. 1381.
    286 Mont. 218.
    951 P.2d 558.

      For Appellant: Lane K. Bennett, Kalispell.
    For Respondent: Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Cregg W. Coughlin, Assistant Attorney General, Helena; Kim Christopher, Lake County Attorney, Robert J. Long, Deputy Lake County Attorney, Poison.
   JUSTICE NELSON

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Ed Roy Sidmore (Sidmore) appeals from a jury trial conviction of felony DUI, fourth offense, and from rulings made by the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, denying his motions to dismiss the charge of felony DUI, fourth offense. We reverse and order the felony charges against Sidmore to be dismissed.

Sidmore raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the District Court err in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction related to the use by the State of his 1990 BAC conviction and his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction, for felony enhancement, because those convictions were expunged?
2. Did the District Court err by not allowing his testimony regarding what he was informed of by the Kalispell City Judge concerning his 1990 BAC conviction?
3. Did the District Court err in denying his motion to dismiss due to the fact that the 1988 Idaho conviction was uncounseled, and there was no evidence that he had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel?
4. Did the District Court err in denying his motion to dismiss for failure of the State to provide him the opportunity to obtain exculpatory evidence, i.e., an independent blood test?
5. Did the District Court err by either instructing the jury that he was charged with a felony and as to his three prior convictions and requiring the State to present evidence of such or avoiding that by requiring him to stipulate prior to trial?

The original Opinion in this cause was issued on October 7, 1997, and appeared in 54 St.Rep. 1026. In the original Opinion, we reversed the District Court, concluding that the portion of Issue 1 relating to Sidmore’s 1990 BAC conviction was dispositive of the appeal, and, consequently, we declined to address that part of Issue 1 regarding Sidmore’s 1988 Idaho DUI conviction and we declined to address Issues 2-5. Thereafter, the State filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to Rule 34, M.R.App.R, and Sidmore filed a brief in opposition. On October 30, 1997, we granted the State’s petition for rehearing, reserving our discussion of the arguments necessitating rehearing for this Opinion.

Without disagreeing with our Opinion issued October 7,1997, the State argues in its petition for rehearing that we erred by simply reversing the District Court. Relying on § 3-5-302(2), MCA(1995), the State contends that although Sidmore may have been improperly charged with felony DUI, the District Court properly has jurisdiction over this case. The State, therefore, asserts that we should address the remaining issues on appeal and remand this case to the District Court for further proceedings.

Sidmore opposes the State’s petition. Relying on § 3-10-303(1), MCA (1995), Sidmore argues that we properly reversed the District Court because the District Court lacked jurisdiction. Sidmore contends that with the expungement of his 1990 BAC conviction, his current 1996 DUI conviction is only his second offense, which pursuant to § 61-8-714(2), MCA(1995), is punishable by a fine not less than $300 or more than $500 and by imprisonment for not less than seven (7) days or more than six (6) months. Therefore, Sidmore asserts, that under § 3-10-303(1), MCA (1995), his 1996 DUI conviction is a misdemeanor over which the justices’ courts have original jurisdiction. Citing §§ 61-8-714(3) and 3-10-303(3), MCA(1995), Sidmore concedes that if his 1996 DUI conviction counted as his third offense, the District Court would have concurrent jurisdiction. However, Sidmore maintains that his 1996 DUI was only his second offense, and, therefore, the District Court did not have original jurisdiction.

We disagree with the State that under § 3-5-302(2), MCA (1995), the District Court retains jurisdiction in this case even though Sidmore was improperly charged with felony DUI in the first instance. Section 3-5-302(2)(b), MCA (1995), provides that the district court has concurrent jurisdiction with the justices’ court in “misdemeanors resulting from the reduction of a felony or misdemeanor offense charged in the district court.” We agree with Sidmore that

this statute does not apply on the facts of this case. Contrary to the State’s argument, the felony with which Sidmore was charged, tried and convicted was never reduced to a misdemeanor in the District Court. Furthermore, to argue that the District Court retains jurisdiction under § 3-5-302(2)(b), MCA (1995), is to assume that the District Court properly exercised jurisdiction from the beginning. However, this argument and its underlying assumption confuse the issue — the issue is not whether the District Court should retain jurisdiction over this case, but whether the District Court properly exercised jurisdiction in the first place. Therefore, to resolve this issue, we must look to § 3-10-303, MCA (1995).

We note in our original Opinion issued October 7, 1997, we held that Sidmore’s 1990 BAC conviction should have been expunged from his record pursuant to § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989). With the expungement of Sidmore’s 1990 BAC conviction, two previous convictions remain on his record-a 1988 Idaho DUI conviction and a 1994 Montana DUI conviction. Consequently, based on our previous Opinion and contrary to Sidmore’s argument, his current 1996 DUI would be his third offense. Pursuant to § 61-8-714(3), MCA (1995), a third DUI conviction is punishable by imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days or more than one (1) year and a fine of not less than $500 or more than $1,000. Therefore, as Sidmore concedes, pursuant to § 3-10-303(3), MCA (1995), the justices’ courts and district courts would have concurrent jurisdiction over a third DUI offense. Because the District Court would have concurrent jurisdiction over a third DUI offense, our decision to address only that part of Issue 1 concerning Sidmore’s 1990 BAC conviction and to simply reverse the District Court was in error. For these reasons, we agree to address the remaining issues on appeal. Accordingly, our original Opinion issued October 7, 1997, is now withdrawn and this Opinion substituted.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 23, 1996, Sidmore was arrested for driving while under the influence (DUI) and for driving while his license was revoked. Sidmore’s driving record revealed that he had received two previous DUI convictions (a 1988 Idaho conviction and a 1994 Montana conviction) and one conviction in 1990 for driving with excessive blood alcohol concentration (BAC), in violation of § 61-8-406, MCA (1989). Consequently, on April 8, 1996, an Information was filed with the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, charging Sidmore with felony DUI, fourth offense, in violation of § 61-8-401(l)(a), MCA (1995), (Count I). Additionally, Sidmore was charged with driving while license suspended or revoked, a misdemeanor, in violation of § 61-5-212, MCA (1995), (Count II). On April 10, 1996, Sidmore entered pleas of not guilty to both charges.

On May 17, 1996, Sidmore moved to dismiss Count I of the Information alleging that the felony charge against him violated his rights to be free from ex post facto legislation; that his 1988 DUI conviction and 1990 BAC conviction should be expunged; that the State violated prior plea bargain agreements with him; and that the State violated his due process rights by failing to provide an independent blood test. On June 12, 1996, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing regarding Sidmore’s motion to dismiss and denied his motion. At the end of the hearing, Sidmore entered a plea of guilty to Count II. Thereafter, Sidmore submitted two more motions to dismiss Count I, which the District Court also denied. The court did not support its denial of any of Sidmore’s three motions to dismiss with a memorandum of opinion or rationale.

On August 29, 1996, a jury trial was held and Sidmore was found guilty of Count I. On October 9,1996, a sentencing hearing was held. On March 3, 1997, the District Court issued an amended judgment and commitment, sentencing Sidmore, based on certain conditions, to the Montana State Prison for six years, with four years suspended under Count I and to the Lake County Jail for a concurrent six month suspended sentence under Count II. However, the District Court stayed execution of this sentence pending appeal. Sidmore appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motions to dismiss, from other various alleged errors and from his judgment and sentence.

DISCUSSION

A district court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case is a question of law which we review de novo. State v. Brander (1996), 280 Mont. 148, 151, 930 P.2d 31, 33 (citation omitted). The two issues addressed in this Opinion arise from arguments made in Sidmore’s May 17,1996 motion to dismiss which the District Court denied after an evidentiary hearing on June 12, 1996. First, in addressing Sidmore’s expungement arguments in Issue 1, we conclude that both Sidmore’s 1990 BAC conviction and his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction should have been expunged from his Montana driving record, and, therefore, these convictions could not now be counted to support the present charge of felony DUI, fourth offense, pursuant to § 61-8-714, MCA (1995). Consequently, with our decision that two of Sidmore’s three prior convictions should be expunged, his current 1996 DUI is only his second offense. Accordingly, without disrupting our decision to grant rehearing, we now conclude that the District Court lacked original jurisdiction in this cause because Sidmore’s 1996 DUI is only his second offense. See §§ 61-8-714(2) and 3-10-303(1), MCA (1995). Consequently, we hold that the District Court erred by denying Sidmore’s motion to dismiss Count I of the Information for lack of original jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the District Court and order the felony charges against Sidmore to be dismissed.

Furthermore, we note that neither the State nor Sidmore develop any arguments concerning whether the 1996 DUI charges can be re-filed injustice court as a misdemeanor DUI, and, therefore, we will not address this issue. However, we acknowledge that the issue of whether Sidmore’s due process right to obtain an independent blood test was violated may be raised again if the charges against him are re-filed in justice court. Therefore, we have addressed this issue. In so doing, we conclude that Sidmore’s right to obtain an independent blood test was not violated, and, therefore, we hold that the District Court did not err in denying Sidmore’s motion to dismiss on this basis. 1. Did the District Court err in denying Sidmore’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction related to the use by the State of his 1990 BAC conviction and his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction, for felony enhancement, because those convictions were expunged?

Sidmore was charged and convicted of felony DUI, fourth offense, pursuant to § 61-8-714, MCA (1995), which provides in pertinent part:

(4) On the fourth or subsequent conviction, the person is guilty of a felony offense and shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than 1 year or more than 10 years and by a fine of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000.....
(6) For the purpose of determining the number of convictions under this section, “conviction” means a final conviction, as defined in 45-2-101, in this state, conviction for a violation of a similar statute in another state, or a forfeiture of bail or collateral deposited to secure the defendant’s appearance in court in this state or another state, which forfeiture has not been vacated. An offender is considered to have been previously convicted for the purposes of sentencing if less than 5 years have elapsed between the commission of the present offense and a previous conviction, unless the offense is the offender’s fourth or subsequent offense, in which case all previous convictions must be used for sentencing purposes. If there has not been an additional conviction for an offense under this section for a period of 5 years after a prior conviction under this section, then all records and data relating to the prior conviction are confidential criminal justice information, as defined in 44-5-103, and public access to the information may only be obtained by district court order upon good cause shown.
(7) For the purpose of calculating subsequent convictions under this section, a conviction for a violation of 61-8-406 also constitutes a conviction for a violation of 61-8-401. [Emphasis added.]

To support the charge of felony DUI, fourth offense, pursuant to § 61-8-714, MCA (1995), the District Court counted Sidmore’s two prior DUI convictions as well as his one prior BAC conviction.

Sidmore argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, and, therefore, that the charge of felony DUI, fourth offense, should be dismissed. Sidmore concedes that under § 61-8-714(7), MCA (1995), both BAC and DUI convictions can be counted to determine the total number of “DUI” convictions a defendant has received. However, he asserts that both his 1990 BAC conviction and his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction may not be counted for the purposes of presently charging him with felony DUI, fourth offense, pursuant to § 61-8-714, MCA (1995), because these convictions should have been expunged by operation of law.

Sidmore explains that under the expungement provision of § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989), he was entitled to have his 1990 BAC conviction expunged from his record because he did not receive a subsequent BAC conviction within the five-year period following his 1990 BAC conviction. Sidmore also asserts that pursuant to the plain language of § 61-8-722(6), MCA(1989), his 1994DC// conviction did not prevent expungement of his 1990 BAC conviction.

In this same regard, Sidmore explains that under the expungement provision of § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), he was entitled to have his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction expunged from his Montana record because he did not receive a subsequent DUI conviction within the five-year period following his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction. Sidmore also asserts that pursuant to the plain language of § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), his 1990 BAC conviction did not prevent expungement of his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction.

The State responds that Sidmore’s expungement arguments concerning both his 1990 BAC conviction and his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction are without merit. Additionally, specifically regarding Sidmore’s argument concerning the expungement of his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction, the State asserts that Sidmore did not properly preserve this argument for appeal. Therefore, the State argues that for the purposes of the sentence enhancement statute of § 61-8-714, MCA (1995), Sidmore’s present offense is his fourth DUI offense. Consequently, the State asserts that the District Court properly denied Sidmore’s motion to dismiss. We disagree.

It is black-letter law that:

[i]n the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted.

Section 1-2-101, MCA. In this case, we need only look to and apply the plain and unambiguous language of the statutes at issue, particularly § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989), and § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), to conclude that Sidmore’s arguments are correct. Additionally, we note that Sidmore did raise arguments before the District Court concerning expungement, under Montana law, of both his 1990 BAC conviction and his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction from his Montana record. Therefore, we will address the merits of both expungement arguments raised under Issue 1.

a. Expungement of Sidmore’s 1990 BAC conviction

In 1990, Sidmore received a BAC conviction pursuant to §§ 61-8-406 and -722, MCA(1989). Section 61-8-406, MCA(1989), provided:

It is unlawful and punishable as provided in 61-8-722 and 61-8-723 for any person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public while the alcohol concentration in his blood, breath, or urine is 0.10 or more. Absolute liability as provided in 45-2-104 will be imposed for a violation of this section.

Additionally, § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989), provided in pertinent part:

For the purpose of determining the number of convictions under this section, “conviction” means a final conviction, as defined in 45-2-101, in this state or a similar statute in another state or a forfeiture of bail or collateral deposited to secure the defendant’s appearance in court in this state or another state, which forfeiture has not been vacated. An offender is considered to have been previously convicted for the purposes of this section if less than 5 years have elapsed between the commission of the present offense and a previous conviction. If there has been no additional conviction for an offense under this section for a period of 5 years after a prior conviction hereunder, then such prior offense shall be expunged from the defendant’s record. [Emphasis added.]

Section 61-8-714, MCA (1995), provides that both BAC (§ 61-8-406, MCA) and DUI (§ 61-8-401, MCA) convictions may be counted to support a charge of felony DUI, fourth offense. However, in the case at bar, Sidmore’s prior 1990 BAC conviction may only be counted under § 61-8-714, MCA (1995), if his 1990 BAC conviction was not expunged from his record pursuant to § 61-8-722(6), MCA(1989). See Brander, 930 P.2d at 35-37. When Sidmore received his BAC conviction in 1990, § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989), contained an expungement provision which provided that “[i]f there has been no additional conviction for an offense under this section for a period of 5 years after a prior conviction hereunder, then such prior offense shall be expunged from the defendant’s record. [Emphasis added.]” That is, the expungement provision of § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989), provided that if Sidmore did not receive an additional BAC conviction within the five-year period following his 1990 BAC conviction, he was entitled to have his 1990 BAC conviction expunged from his record.

Nothing in § 61-8-722(6), MCA(1989), provided that both BAC and DUI convictions received within the five-year period following Sid-more’s 1990 BAC conviction could be counted to determine whether Sidmore was entitled to have his prior BAC conviction expunged from his record. Indeed, the plain language of this section requires precisely the opposite conclusion. In other words, whether Sidmore received a subsequent DUI conviction within the five-year period following his 1990 BAC conviction would not affect his 1990 BAC conviction’s eligibility for expungement under § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989), providing he did not receive another BAC conviction within five years of the 1990 BAC conviction.

As Sidmore’s driving record indicates, while he received a subsequent DUI conviction in 1994, he did not receive another BAC conviction during the five-year period following his 1990 BAC conviction. Consequently, based on the plain language of § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989), Sidmore’s 1990 BAC conviction should have been automatically expunged in 1995, as a matter of law. See State v. Bowles (1997), [284 Mont. 490], 947 P.2d 52 (holding that identical language in the expungement provision of § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1981), provided for automatic expungement of eligible DUI convictions as a matter of law). That is, all traces of the criminal process relating to his 1990 BAC conviction should have been destroyed in 1995. See Brander, 930 P.2d at 36 (citations omitted). Therefore, because Sidmore’s 1990 BAC conviction no longer exists, it cannot be counted to support the present charge of felony DUI, fourth offense, pursuant to § 61-8-714, MCA (1995).

b. Expungement of Sidmore’s 1988 Idaho DUI conviction

In 1988, Sidmore received a DUI conviction from the Magistrate Division of the First Judicial District Court, Bonner County, Idaho. We agree with Sidmore that despite receiving his 1988 DUI conviction in Idaho, this conviction should have been expunged as a matter of law in 1993 from his Montana driving record pursuant to § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987). In making this conclusion, we note that both Montana and Idaho have enacted the Driver License Compact. See §§ 61-5-401 et seq., MCA. See also Idaho Code § 49-2001. The Driver License Compact provides in pertinent part:

Article III. Reports of Conviction
The licensing authority of a party state shall report each conviction of a person from another party state occurring within its jurisdiction to the licensing authority of the home state of the licensee. Such report shall clearly identify the person convicted; describe the violation specifying the section of the statute, code, or ordinance violated; identify the court in which action was taken; indicate whether a plea of guilty or not guilty was entered or the conviction was a result of the forfeiture of bail, bond, or other security; and include any special findings made in connection therewith.
Article IV. Effect of Conviction
(1) The licensing authority in the home state, for the purposes of suspension, revocation, or limitation of the license to operate a motor vehicle, shall give the same effect to the conduct reported, pursuant to Article III of this compact, as it would if such conduct had occurred in the home state, in the case of convictions for:
(a) manslaughter or negligent homicide resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle;
(b) driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug, or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle;
(c) any felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used;
(d) failure to stop and render aid in the event of a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death or personal injury of another.
(2) As to other convictions, reported pursuant to Article III, the licensing authority in the home state shall give such effect to the conduct as is provided by the laws of the home state.

Section 61-5-401, MCA (emphasis added) (pursuant to § 61-5-401, Art. II, (2), MCA, “home state” is defined as “the state which has issued and has the power to suspend or revoke the use of the license or permit to operate a motor vehicle [i.e., in this instance, Montana is the home state]”).

Additionally, § 61-5-107, MCA (1987), sets forth the driver’s license application process and provides in pertinent part:

(3) Whenever application is received from an applicant previously licensed by any other jurisdiction, the department shall request a copy of such applicant’s driving record from such previous licensing jurisdiction. When received, such driving records shall become a part of the driver’s record in this state with the same force and effect as though entered on the driver’s record in this state in the original instance. [Emphasis added.]

In this case, it is unclear from the record whether Sidmore was licensed to drive in Idaho or Montana at the time of his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction. However, as indicated by the emphasized language in the preceding statutes, regardless of the manner in which the State of Montana received information concerning Sidmore’s Idaho conviction, this conviction is to be given the same effect as if entered in Montana. Therefore, because Sidmore received his Idaho DUI conviction in 1988, we apply the statutory language of §§ 61-8-401 and -714, MCA (1987), to determine not whether his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction should have been expunged from his Idaho record, but whether his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction should have been expunged from his Montana record.

Section 61-8-401, MCA (1987), provided in pertinent part:

(1) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in 61-8-714 and 61-8-723 for any person who is under the influence of:
(a) alcohol to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public;
(b) a narcotic drug to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state;
(c) any other drug to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state; or
(d) alcohol and any drug to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state.

Additionally, § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), provided:

For the purpose of determining the number of convictions under this section, “conviction” means a final conviction, as defined in 45-2-101, in this state or a similar statute in another state or a forfeiture of bail or collateral deposited to secure the defendant’s appearance in court in this state or another state, which forfeiture has not been vacated. An offender is considered to have been previously convicted for the purposes of this section if less than 5 years have elapsed between the commission of the present offense and a previous conviction. If there has been no additional conviction for an offense under this section for a period of 5 years after a prior conviction hereunder, then such prior offense shall be expunged from the defendant’s record. [Emphasis added.]

As is seen from the language of § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), which provided that “[f]or the purpose of determining the number of convictions under this section, ‘conviction’ means a final conviction, as defined in 45-2-101, in this state or a similar statute in another state ...,” this statutory expungement provision applies to Sidmore’s 1988 Idaho DUI conviction. Furthermore, the language of the DUI ex-pungement provision of § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), is identical to the language of the BAC expungement provision of § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989). Therefore, we conclude that Sidmore’s 1988 Idaho DUI conviction should have been expunged from his Montana record in 1993 pursuant to § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), just as his 1990 BAC conviction should have been expunged from his record in 1995 pursuant to § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989).

That is, the expungement provision of § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), provided that if Sidmore did not receive an additional DUI conviction within the five-year period following his 1988 DUI conviction, he was entitled to have his 1988 DUI conviction expunged from his record. Nothing in § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), provided that both BAC and DUI convictions received within the five-year period following Sid-more’s 1988 DUI conviction could be counted to determine whether Sidmore was entitled to have his prior DUI conviction expunged from his record. Consequently, whether Sidmore received a subsequent BAC conviction within the five-year period following his 1988 DUI conviction would not affect his 1988 DUI conviction’s eligibility for expungement under § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), providing he did not receive another DUI conviction within five years of the 1988 DUI conviction.

As Sidmore’s driving record indicates, while he received a subsequent BAC conviction in 1990, he did not receive another DUI conviction during the five-year period following his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction. Consequently, based on the plain language of § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), Sidmore’s 1988 Idaho DUI conviction should have been automatically expunged from his Montana record in 1993, as a matter of law. See Bowles, 947 P.2d 52. That is, all traces of information relating to his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction contained in his Montana record should have been destroyed in 1993. See Brander, 930 P.2d at 36 (citations omitted). Therefore, because Sidmore’s 1988 Idaho DUI conviction no longer exists on his Montana record, it cannot be counted to support the present charge of felony DUI, fourth offense, pursuant to § 61-8-714, MCA (1995). Consequently, on this basis, we hold that the District Court erred by denying Sidmore’s motion to dismiss Count I of the Information for lack of original jurisdiction.

2. Did the District Court err by not allowing Sidmore’s testimony regarding what„he was informed of by the Kalispell City Judge concerning his 1990 BAC conviction?

Sidmore alternatively argues that his 1990 BAC conviction cannot be counted in support of the charge of felony DUI, fourth offense, because he did not knowingly or intelligently waive his right to counsel in that proceeding. Based on information the Kalispell City Judge gave him, Sidmore contends that he did not understand the legal consequences of his plea of guilty to the 1990 BAC charge, and, therefore, he did not knowingly or intelligently waive his right to counsel.

In Issue 1, we determined that Sidmore’s 1990 BAC conviction should have been expunged from his record pursuant to § 61-8-722(6), MCA (1989), and, therefore, his 1990 BAC conviction could not be counted in support of the charge of felony DUI, fourth offense. Because our decision in Issue 1 is dispositive, we will not address this issue.

3. Did the District Court err in denying Sidmore’s motion to dismiss due to the fact that the 1988 Idaho conviction was uncounseled, and there was no evidence that he had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel?

Sidmore also alternatively argues that his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction cannot be counted in support of the charge of felony DUI, fourth offense, because he did not knowingly or intelligently waive his right to counsel in that proceeding.

In Issue 1, we also determined that Sidmore’s 1988 Idaho DUI conviction should have been expunged from his Montana driving record pursuant to § 61-8-714(5), MCA (1987), and, therefore, his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction could not be counted in support of the charge of felony DUI, fourth offense. Again, because our decision in Issue 1 is dispositive, we will not address this issue.

4. Did the District Court err in denying Sidmore’s motion to dismiss for failure of the State to provide him the opportunity to obtain exculpatory evidence, i.e., an independent blood test?

On June 12,1996, an evidentiary hearing was held concerning Sidmore’s argument in his first motion to dismiss that his right to obtain exculpatory evidence was violated. During this hearing Sid-more’s arresting officer testified that when he processed Sidmore for driving under the influence, he read the Implied Consent Law to Sidmore twice and Sidmore read it once. Then he asked Sidmore to take a breath test and Sidmore refused. Sidmore’s arresting officer also testified that after reading the Implied Consent Law to Sidmore, Sidmore requested a blood test and that he advised Sidmore that after processing, he would give Sidmore a telephone book to locate someone to perform the blood test. Furthermore, he told Sidmore that when Sidmore located someone, he would take Sidmore to have the blood test performed. Thereafter, Sidmore was placed in a booking cell which contained a telephone and was given a phone book. The arresting officer testified that Sidmore remained in the booking cell for 30-45 minutes and during that time he was no more than a few feet away from Sidmore, separated only by bars and an open doorway. Yet, during that time, Sidmore never made arrangements for an independent blood test.

Citing City of Whitefish v. Pinson (1995), 271 Mont. 170, 895 P.2d 610, Sidmore argues that his due process rights were violated because he was denied the opportunity to obtain exculpatory evidence. Specifically, Sidmore asserts that he refused an officer-designated breath test and stated that he wanted an independent blood test. However, Sidmore contends that the officer simply provided him with a phone book to locate a doctor or nurse who was willing to draw blood rather than transporting him to the local hospital emergency room for the blood test. Therefore, Sidmore argues that by failing to take him for a blood test, the officer violated his right to obtain exculpatory evidence. Accordingly, Sidmore concludes that the District Court erred when it failed to dismiss the felony DUI charge against him on this basis.

Relying on State v. Klinkhammer (1993), 256 Mont. 275, 846 P.2d 1008, the State responds that Sidmore did not request an independent blood test. Rather, the State argues that Sidmore, like Klinkhammer, requested a blood test in lieu of the officer-designated breath test, and, therefore, this constituted a refusal of the officer-designated test rather than a request for an independent blood test. Additionally, citing State v. Clark (1988), 234 Mont. 222, 762 P.2d 853, the State argues that the arresting officer did not impede Sidmore’s ability to obtain an independent blood test. Accordingly, the State concludes that the District Court properly denied Sidmore’s first motion to dismiss on this basis.

In addition to the officer-designated breath test provided for under § 61-8-402, MCA (1995) (the Implied Consent Law), § 61-8-405(2), MCA (1995), allowed for additional tests to determine blood alcohol. Section 61-8-405(2), MCA (1995), provided:

The person may, at the person’s own expense, have a physician or registered nurse of the person’s own choosing administer a test, in addition to any administered at the direction of a peace officer, for the purpose of determining any measured amount or detected presence of alcohol or drugs in the person at the time alleged, as shown by analysis of the person’s blood, breath, or urine. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person does not preclude the admissibility in evidence of the test or tests taken at the direction of a peace officer.

In State v. Swanson (1986), 222 Mont. 357, 722 P.2d 1155, after quoting § 61-8-405(2), MCA, we recognized that an accused person has a constitutionally guaranteed right to attempt to obtain exculpatory evidence. Swanson, 722 P.2d at 1157. More specifically, we recognized that the accused’s right to obtain exculpatory evidence includes the right to obtain an independent test to establish sobriety when charged with the offense of driving under the influence, even if the accused has refused a test offered by a law enforcement officer. Swanson, 722 P.2d at 1157. Furthermore, we held that “[w]hile the police have no duty to assist an accused in obtaining independent evidence of sobriety, they cannot frustrate such an effort through either affirmative acts or their rules and regulations.” Swanson, 722 P.2d at 1158.

In State, City of Bozeman v. Peterson (1987), 227 Mont. 418, 739 P.2d 958, we “clarified” the rule in Swanson concerning the accused’s right to obtain an independent blood test as follows:

For the purpose of clarification of our rule in Swanson that one accused of a crime involving intoxication is entitled to obtain a blood test, it should be explained that the rule applies only when (1) the defendant has timely claimed the right to a blood test, and (2) the officer or officers do not unreasonably impede the defendant’s right to obtain a blood test. If a blood test of the defendant is unavailable through no unreasonable acts of an officer or officers, the Swanson rule does not apply.

Peterson, 739 P.2d at 961 (emphasis added). We subsequently quoted the criteria necessary for the Swanson rule to apply again in Clark, 762 P.2d at 856; Klinkhammer, 846 P.2d at 1011; and Pinson, 895 P.2d at 612.

Without disagreeing with the quoted material of Peterson previously set forth, we conclude that the second criterion, as written, is grammatically incorrect. As we explained in Klinkhammer:

Both criteria must be satisfied in order to support an allegation of a violation of a defendant’s due process rights. The Swanson rule will not apply if the defendant either fails to timely request the test, or the test is unavailable through no unreasonable acts of law enforcement.

Klinkhammer, 846 P.2d at 1011. In other words, the rule in Swanson will apply only if the defendant can establish that he made a timely request for an independent test and that a law enforcement officer unreasonably impeded his right to obtain the test. However, as it is currently written, the second criterion sets forth that a defendant must establish that a law enforcement officer did not unreasonably impede his right to obtain an independent blood test to support an allegation that his due process rights were violated. As such, the second criterion is inconsistent with the rule as set forth in Swanson. Therefore, for the second criterion to be grammatically correct, it should read “(2) the officer or officers do not unreasonably impede[d] the defendant’s right to obtain a blood test.”

Accordingly, to clarify our rule in Swanson that one accused of a crime involving intoxication is entitled to obtain an independent blood test, we hold that the rule applies only when (1) the defendant has timely claimed the right to an independent blood test, and (2) a law enforcement officer has unreasonably impeded the defendant’s right to obtain an independent blood test. Both criteria must be satisfied in order to support an allegation of a violation of a defendant’s due process rights. The Swanson rule will not apply if the defendant either fails to timely request the independent blood test, or the independent blood test is unavailable through no unreasonable acts of law enforcement.

Furthermore, after this appeal was submitted on briefs, we decided the case of City of Kalispell v. Strand (1997) [286 Mont. 122], 951 P.2d 552. In Strand, we reaffirmed the rule in Swanson and acknowledged that Swanson did not create for law enforcement officers an affirmative duty to assist the accused in obtaining independent evidence of sobriety, nor did that case go so far as to create a duty on the part of the police to inform the accused of the right to obtain an independent blood test. Strand, 951 P.2d 554. However, without disrupting the rule set forth in Swanson, we took the next step and held that “due process requires that the arresting officer inform the accused of his or her right to obtain an independent blood test, regardless of whether the accused consents to the test designated by the officer.” Strand, 951 P.2d 554. We explained that due to the evanescent character of blood alcohol evidence, the accused’s right to obtain an independent blood test is rendered meaningless unless the accused is apprised of this right while the blood can still be analyzed. Strand, 951 P.2d 554-55. Therefore, we held that a law enforcement officer has an affirmative duty to inform the accused of the right to obtain an independent blood test at the time of arrest. Strand, 951 P.2d at 555.

In Strand, the Kalispell police department had an express policy that law enforcement officers should not read to the accused the implied consent advisory form, which explained the substance of Montana’s implied consent statutes, unless or until the accused refused to submit to an officer-designated sobriety test. Strand, 951 P.2d 553. Because Strand had submitted to the officer-designated breath test, he was never read the form, and, consequently, was never informed of his right to obtain an independent blood test. Strand, 951 P.2d 553-54. Because Strand was not informed of his right to obtain an independent blood test, we concluded that his due process rights were violated. Strand, 951 P.2d at 555.

In the case at bar, Sidmore does not argue that his due process rights to obtain exculpatory evidence were violated because he was never informed of his right to obtain an independent blood test, as was the case in Strand. Rather, Sidmore argues that his due process rights were violated, because his arresting officer failed to take him to the local emergency room for an independent blood test after he requested the test. Therefore, as discussed previously, for Sidmore to support his allegation that his due process rights were violated, he must establish that his request for an independent blood test was timely and that the law enforcement officer unreasonably impeded his right to obtain the blood test. See Swanson, 722 P.2d at 1157-58.

First, we note that the State argues on appeal that Sidmore did not request an independent blood test. However, contrary to this argument, we note in the District Court record that the State clearly states in its June 3, 1996 Response to Sidmore’s first motion to dismiss that “[d]uring the Defendant’s DUI processing at the Lake County Sheriff’s Department the Defendant did request an independent blood test.” Because the State’s argument that Sidmore did not request an independent blood test is not only not supported by the trial court record but also is raised for the first time on appeal, we will not address it. See State v. Fuhrmann (1996), 278 Mont. 396, 404, 925 P.2d 1162, 1167 (citing State v. Henderson (1994), 265 Mont. 454, 458, 877 P.2d 1013, 1016). Consequently, we conclude that Sidmore made a timely request for an independent blood test. Accordingly, we must only determine whether the State unreasonably impeded Sidmore’s right to obtain an independent blood test.

Sidmore in essence argues that his arresting officer had a duty to take him to the local emergency room for an independent blood test, and that by failing to do so, the arresting officer violated his right to obtain exculpatory evidence. We disagree. As we explained in Clark, someone accused of criminal intoxication has a constitutional right to obtain exculpatory evidence, but such right is limited. Clark, 762 P.2d at 855. That is, law enforcement officers do not have an affirmative duty to assist the accused in obtaining exculpatory evidence, rather law enforcement officers must only avoid interfering with the accused’s efforts to obtain an independent sobriety test. Clark, 762 P.2d at 855-56 (citing Swanson, 722 P.2d at 1158).

In Clark, a police officer arrested Clark for driving under the influence. During the booking procedure, Clark interrupted the arresting officer’s reading of the State of Montana Implied Consent Law Advisory Form to request a physician’s care which the arresting officer denied. Thereafter, Clark again interrupted the arresting officer and stated that he wanted “a physician and registered nurse at this moment to take a sample of my blood.” The arresting officer replied “just a minute” and finished reading the implied consent form. Clark then refused the breath test offered. After placing Clark in a holding cell, the arresting officer made five phone calls for Clark, including three to Clark’s physician. During these telephone calls, Clark never requested that the physician perform a blood test. Clark, 762 P.2d at 855.

We rejected Clark’s argument that due to his request during the reading of the implied consent law, the arresting officer was on notice that he was requesting an independent blood test and that by not aiding him in obtaining the test his rights were violated. Rather, we concluded that Clark was given an opportunity to obtain an independent blood test when the officer made phone calls on Clark’s behalf to Clark’s physician but that Clark failed to take the opportunity to set up an independent blood test. Therefore, we held that Clark’s due process rights had not been violated. Clark, 762 P.2d at 856.

Here, after requesting an independent blood test, Sidmore’s arresting officer advised him that after processing, he would give Sidmore a telephone book to locate someone to perform a blood test. Furthermore, Sidmore’s arresting officer told Sidmore that once Sidmore located someone to perform the test, he would take Sidmore to have the test performed. Thereafter, he placed Sidmore in a hooking cell which contained a telephone and Sidmore was given a telephone book. Sidmore remained in the booking cell for 30-45 minutes while his arresting officer was no more than a few feet away, separated only by bars and an open doorway. However, despite having access to a telephone and a telephone book during this period of time, Sidmore, like Clark, failed to take the opportunity to make arrangements for an independent blood test.

As we explained in Clark, Sidmore’s request for an independent blood test did not create a duty on the part of his arresting officer to take him to the local hospital emergency room for a blood test to be performed. See Clark, 762 P.2d at 855-56. Rather, Sidmore’s arresting officer was only required to avoid interfering with Sidmore’s efforts to obtain the independent blood test. Clark, 762 P.2d at 855-56. Here, Sidmore’s arresting officer did not interfere with Sidmore’s efforts to obtain an independent blood test. Instead, after Sidmore requested an independent blood test, Sidmore’s arresting officer provided him with the opportunity to obtain an independent blood test by giving him access to a telephone and a telephone book and by informing him that transportation would be provided to the test once Sidmore made arrangements. Despite this opportunity, Sidmore failed to make arrangements for the independent blood test.

Therefore, while Sidmore made a timely request for an independent blood test, the unavailability of the test was not caused by the unreasonable acts of law enforcement, but rather was caused by Sidmore’s own failure to act after he requested the independent blood test and was given the opportunity to arrange the test. As such, we conclude that Sidmore’s due process rights were not violated. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not err in denying Sidmore’s motion to dismiss on this basis.

5. Did the District C ourt err by either instructing the jury that Sidmore was charged with a felony and as to his three prior convictions and requiring the State to present evidence of such or avoiding that by requiring him to stipulate prior to trial?

Sidmore filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude introduction of evidence of his prior convictions and that his current charge was a felony. Prior to trial, the District Court, for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction, asked the parties to stipulate that the requisite number of convictions existed for Sidmore’s current DUI offense to be charged as a felony, fourth offense, in the District Court. Sidmore’s counsel agreed to the stipulation, reserving the right to appeal his three motions to dismiss which the District Court had denied. Now, on appeal, Sidmore challenges this stipulation. However, because Sidmore raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we will not address it. See State v. Weeks (1995), 270 Mont. 63, 86, 891 P.2d 477, 491.

In sum, we conclude that Sidmore’s due process right to obtain an independent blood test was not violated, and, therefore, we hold that the District Court did not err in denying Sidmore’s motion to dismiss on this basis. However, we conclude that both Sidmore’s 1990 BAC conviction and his 1988 Idaho DUI conviction should have been expunged as a matter of law from his Montana record. Consequently, we hold that the District Court erred by denying Sidmore’s motion to dismiss Count I of the Information for lack of original jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the District Court and order it to dismiss the felony charges against Sidmore.

Reversed.

CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE, JUSTICES LEAPHART, TRIEWEILER and REGNIER concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JUSTICE TRIEWEILER

license: Public Domain

text:
    IN RE MARRIAGE OF DAVID F. STUFFT, Petitioner and Appellant, and MAYLA S. STUFFT, Respondent and Respondent.
    No. 97-040.
    Submitted on Briefs October 23, 1997.
    Decided December 19, 1997.
    54 St.Rep. 1391.
    286 Mont. 239.
    950 P.2d 1373.

      For Appellant: David F. Stufft, Attorney at Law, Cut Bank.
    For Respondent: C. W. Leaphart, Jr., The Leaphart Law Firm, Helena.
   JUSTICE TRIEWEILER

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The petitioner, David F. Stufft, petitioned the District Court for the Eighth Judicial District in Cascade County for dissolution of his marriage to the respondent, Mayla S. Stufft. The District Court entered a decree which dissolved the parties’ marriage, divided the marital estate, established David’s responsibility for child support, and awarded maintenance to Mayla. David appeals the maintenance and child support awards, and the division of the parties’ property. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the District Court, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The issues on appeal are as follows:

1. Did the District Court err when it divided the marital estate?
2. Did the District Court err when it awarded child support?
3. Did the District Court err when it awarded maintenance to Mayla?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

David and Mayla Stufft were married in 1971. Three children were bom of the marriage. During their marriage, David attended and graduated from law school. Following his graduation in 1977, the family moved to Cut Bank, where David continues to practice law. The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 1995 and David and Mayla were granted joint custody of the children. Mayla was designated the primary residential custodian.

In the parties’ first decree of dissolution, the court distributed the property in the marital estate and awarded Mayla child support and maintenance. David appealed from the District Court’s decision. See In re Marriage of Stufft (1996), 276 Mont. 454, 916 P.2d 767. We remanded for reconsideration of issues related to property valuation, child support, and maintenance. This appeal is from the District Court’s decision following remand.

As a result of the first appeal, we remanded this case to the District Court for: (1) findings which would explain how it calculated its award of child support based on the guidelines and any deviation therefrom; (2) findings to support a valuation of the Stufft Farm Stock and the Stufft Law Firm; and (3) reconsideration of maintenance in the context of the other issues. See Stufft, 276 Mont. at 461-62, 916 P.2d at 770-72. We also instructed the District Court to reconsider its distribution of the marital estate assets and debts once the court had determined the value of the Stufft Law Firm and the Stufft Farm Stock. See Stufft, 276 Mont. at 461, 916 P.2d at 772.

Following remand, the District Court held another hearing and heard additional testimony. On January 13, 1997, the District Court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on January 22, 1997, issued its modified decree. David appeals the District Court’s valuation and division of marital property and its award of child support and maintenance.

ISSUE 1

Did the District Court err when it divided the marital estate?

We review the findings of fact upon which a district court’s division of marital property is based to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. See Stufft, 276 Mont. at 459, 916 P.2d at 770. If those findings are not clearly erroneous, the district court’s distribution of property is discretionary and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Stufft, 276 Mont. at 459, 916 P.2d at 770.

The District Court distributed assets worth $111,421 to Mayla, and assets worth $133,500 to David. As part of this distribution, Mayla received a certificate of deposit worth $19,800, furniture valued at $20,000, the family home valued at $155,000, a vehicle valued at $5,500, and a travel trailer valued at $2,000. David received the assets of the Stufft Law Firm, which the court valued at $50,000, 20 shares of stock from Stufft Farms valued at $1,000, furniture valued at $10,000, a boat and trailer valued at $9,500, ahorse valued at $500, a 1994 Dodge valued at $20,000, and 50 percent interest in David’s partnership rental building valued at $20,000. The court assigned debt in the amount of $76,233 to Mayla, and debt in the amount of $112,000 to David. On appeal, David assigns error, in general, to the District Court’s property distribution and, specifically, to the District Court’s award of the $19,800 certificate of deposit to Mayla, the distribution of furniture of sentimental value, the award of the total value of the family home to Mayla, the assignment of debt related to the family home and David’s law practice, the valuation of the Stufft Law Firm, the distribution of the family’s horse, and the value of the automobile awarded to Mayla. We will address each of these issues individually.

A. Certificate of Deposit

David contends that he spent the value of the $19,800 certificate of deposit awarded to Mayla on operating expenses for his law firm prior to the original trial and, therefore, that he should not be required to pay Mayla the equivalent of what is now a dissipated asset. According to David, the court awarded a “non-existent” certificate of deposit to Mayla which was spent by the time of the first trial. We conclude, however, that David’s own testimony and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law support the District Court’s award. First, we note that at a hearing held on December 10, 1996, David testified that the certificate of deposit was in existence at the time of trial. Second, in his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law from the original hearing, David lists as a marital asset a $19,800 certificate of deposit as property that should be awarded to him. Based on this evidence, we conclude that the District Court’s finding with regard to the existence of the certificate of deposit was not clearly erroneous and its award of that item was not an abuse of discretion. The fact that David chose to dissipate what the District Court had determined to be a marital asset does not preclude the distribution of the value of that asset to Mayla.

B. Furniture

David next contends that Mayla has in her possession several items of furniture which have sentimental value to David. The District Court ordered Mayla to return those items or certify in writing that she no longer has them. The court also ordered that if any furniture item is being used for the benefit of any of the children, then it should be returned when that child matures and leaves the family home. At trial, David described these items of furniture as being a roll-top desk, an Indian hammerhead, antique living room furniture, half of a collection of oriental rugs, an antique oak table, and an antique Colt revolver. The court described these items of furniture, valued at $10,000, as including a roll-top desk, antique living room furniture, a toboggan, and an Indian hammerhead, but failed to mention the collection of oriental rugs, the antique oak table, and the antique Colt revolver. We affirm the District Court’s finding which requires Mayla to certify, in writing, that she no longer has possession of those items. We also affirm the District Court’s finding that Mayla keep in possession the items of furniture used for the benefit of the children until the children have left Mayla’s home. However, because the District Court failed to designate a specific distribution for half of the collection of oriental rugs, the antique oak table, and the antique Colt revolver, we remand this portion of the case to the District Court for a distribution of those items or an explanation of whether they are included in the $10,000 furniture distribution to David.

C. Award of the net sale proceeds of the family home to Mayla

David maintains that the District Court erred when it awarded the net sale proceeds of the family home to Mayla and did not recognize his contributions to the financing of the home. He contends that the District Court should have credited him with $11,800 of the purchase price as funds traceable to a trust fund owned by David prior to the marriage. David also argues that the District Court should have credited him for the $4,200 he spent on repairs to the home before it was sold.

In In re Marriage of Eklund (1989), 236 Mont. 77, 768 P.2d 340, we held that a portion of the marital estate may be set aside if it is traceable to one party or the other. Whether it is traceable depends on the adequacy of the evidence presented in the case. Premarital property is considered commingled with the marital estate when there is no attempt during the marriage to segregate the property. See In re Marriage of Danelson (1992), 253 Mont. 310, 318, 833 P.2d 215, 220. In Eklund, the husband’s parents loaned him $60,000 to buy a house. Apromissory note named only the husband as the obligor and named both of his parents as payees. The parties had been married for four years when the husband filed for dissolution. At trial, the parents testified that their donative intent was to make a gift solely to the husband. Pursuant to the tax planning advice the parents received, they both intended to make a separate $10,000 gift to their son each year, as they had done with each of their other children. Eklund, 236 Mont. at 79, 768 P.2d at 342. The facts in Eklund present a clear case of funds which are traceable to one party. The situation in this case is very different. David’s trust fund money was property which he brought into the marriage in 1971 and used to help finance the family home. Neither David nor Mayla testified that David intended to keep those funds separate from the marital estate. David and Mayla’s marriage lasted for twenty-four years, as opposed to the four-year marriage in Eklund. Based on this evidence, we conclude that there was no evidence that David made any effort to segregate his contribution to the parties’ home; it has now been commingled with the marital estate; and the District Court’s award of the entire value of the family home to Mayla was not an abuse of discretion.

David also contends that the District Court erred when it did not give him credit for the $4,200 he spent preparing the family home for sale after Mayla moved out. The District Court considered David’s contention but found that his $4,200 was offset by the property he removed from the house and the fact that he failed to pay some of the house payments as previously ordered by the court. Based on these facts, we again conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. We therefore affirm the District Court’s award of the net proceeds of the sale of the family home to Mayla.

D. Assignment of debt related to the family home and David’s law practice

We have previously reviewed the findings with regard to the District Court’s assignment of debt related to the family home and David’s law practice, and have stated our conclusion in Stufft, 276 Mont. 454, 916 P.2d 767. In that case, we rejected David’s contention that the distribution was “unfair” and affirmed the District Court’s debt allocation. We stated:

We have reviewed the court’s assignment of debt and note that the debt assigned to David is either personal to him or to his business. David took out a second mortgage on the family home and incurred further debt to purchase a practice and office building from which he alleges he received $12,000 that he then invested in his current practice. David’s current practice, Stufft Law Firm, is an asset of David and we have said that the debts of a business are the responsibility of whomever has the interest in that business. See In re Marriage of Childers (1985), 216 Mont. 125, 127, 700 P.2d 594, 595.

Stufft, 276 Mont. at 461, 916 P.2d at 771.

Following the original property distribution, in which David was awarded the Stufft law firm and Mayla the family home, David converted to his own use $27,885.56 of the proceeds from the sale of the family home. The District Court, however, did not award any of the proceeds from the sale of the home to David. All of the net proceeds were awarded to Mayla. On appeal, David contends that his conversion of these funds was justified because he used the money to pay off the mortgage on his law practice which, in his opinion, was for the benefit of both Mayla and him. For this reason, David argues, he should be free of any obligation to repay Mayla that amount. The District Court, however, ordered that David repay Mayla the amount which he converted for the benefit of his law practice. Based on our decision in Childers in which we said that the debts of a business are the responsibility of whomever has the interest in that business, we agree with the District Court that it was not unreasonable to assign the debt to finance David’s law firm to David since he was the party who received that asset in the marital property distribution. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s distribution of the debt related to the family home and David’s business.

E. Value of the Stufft Law Firm

David contends that the District Court erred when it determined the value of the Stufft Law Firm. He argues that the District Court overvalued the goodwill of the law firm and assigned that amount to David as an asset in the distribution of the marital property. In In re Marriage of Hull (1986), 219 Mont. 480, 712 P.2d 1317, we discussed the valuation of the goodwill of a professional practice and concluded that the goodwill of such a practice may be a marital asset subject to property division in a marriage dissolution. See Hull, 219 Mont. at 485, 712 P.2d at 1321. In Hull, we adopted the following language from the Washington Supreme Court as part of our analysis and determination of the value of goodwill: “The determination of [goodwill] value can be reached with the aid of expert testimony and by consideration of such factors as the practitioner’s age, health, past earning power, reputation in the community for judgement, skill and knowledge, and his comparative professional success.” Hull, 219 Mont. at 484, 712 P.2d at 1320 (citing In re Marriage of Fleege (Wash. 1979), 588 P.2d 1136). In Hull, the husband argued that this Court should pay more attention to the testimony of two members of the same profession who practiced with him, as well as the testimony of the husband’s own accountant, than to the testimony of a CPA who specializes in valuing businesses. See Hull, 219 Mont. at 488, 712 P.2d at 1322. We concluded that the CPA’s analysis of the value of goodwill was understandable and reasonable and had considered the various factors which we had approved of in our adoption of Washington’s goodwill analysis. We further concluded that the evidence submitted by that CPA was understandable, substantial in nature, and reasonable. We held that the district court did not err when it assigned the value it did to the husband’s professional practice based on the expert testimony of that CPA. See Hull, 219 Mont. at 488, 712 P.2d at 1323.

Similarly, in this case, Mayla presented the expert testimony of a CPA regarding the valuation of the goodwill associated with David’s law firm. David maintains that the CPA’s appraisal of the Stufft Law Firm’s goodwill is inadequate and based on a faulty analysis. The District Court recognized that David’s cross-examination of the CPA revealed some inadequacies in the CPA’s appraisal; however, the court found that the CPA’s appraisal was the most credible evidence presented to the court. David presented no expert testimony to contradict that of Mayla’s CPA, and maintained that the law firm was merely worth the value of its office equipment. In comparison, the CPA testified that his expertise for the past ten years has been in the valuation of various types of professional practices. His method of valuing the goodwill of professional practices is to convert the law firm’s earnings to a multiple of the gross income, based upon the profitability of the business, and its going concern value based on an ongoing customer group. The CPA relied principally upon the law firm’s tax returns to find the fee income of the law firm, then applied a goodwill factor of 25 percent to the value of the business. The 25 percent figure is based upon statistics for similar types of professional practices where the rate of retention of clients is comparable. The amount he arrived at from this equation was exclusive of the underlying assets in the business. The CPA arrived at a goodwill value for the Stufft Law Firm of $43,605.

Although David’s cross-examination of the CPA raised some relevant questions regarding the method of valuation, David offered no expert testimony which might offer a reasonable alternative to the CPA’s valuation of the Stufft Law Firm’s goodwill. The District Court, therefore, found that the CPA’s appraisal was the most credible evidence presented to the court and concluded that the goodwill of David’s law firm is valued at $43,605.

Based on the testimony presented in this case, and the fact that it was uncontroverted by any comparable expert testimony from David, we conclude that the District Court’s valuation of the goodwill attached to David’s law practice was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous.

F. Value and distribution of the horse awarded to David and the vehicle awarded to Mayla

With regard to the valuation of the horse awarded to David and the vehicle awarded to Mayla, we reverse the findings of the District Court. After a review of the record we have, first, found no indication of who actually owns the horse valued at $500 and distributed as an asset to David. If neither Mayla nor David own the horse, and it is instead owned by the parties’ daughter, then it cannot be distributed as an asset of the marital estate. Second, Mayla replaced the family van with another vehicle sometime after the date of the first trial in this matter. At the time of the dissolution, Mayla represented that the van had a value of $15,000, against which there was a debt of $5,467. The vehicle for which she exchanged the van has a value of $5,500, but $4,420 is owed for that vehicle. Despite this exchange of property, the District Court failed to account for the difference in value of the two vehicles and any income gained from the sale of one vehicle and purchase of the other. Therefore, because the findings of the District Court regarding the horse and automobile are not supported by substantial evidence, we conclude that they are in error and we remand to the District Court for a determination of value and redistribution.

ISSUE 2

Did the District Court err when it awarded child support?

The District Court ordered David to pay Mayla the sum of $336 per child per month for the care, support, and maintenance of the parties’ minor children. We review findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. See Production Credit Ass’n v. DeSaye (1991), 250 Mont. 320, 322, 820 P.2d 1285, 1286. We review a district court’s award of child support to determine whether the district court abused its discretion. See In re Marriage of Craib (1994), 266 Mont. 483, 490, 880 P.2d 1379, 1384. This Court has stated that “a district court must apply its discretion in a realistic manner, taking into account the actual situation of the parties.” In re Marriage of Noel (1994), 265 Mont. 249, 252, 875 P.2d 358, 359. See also D.F.D. and D.G.D. (1993), 261 Mont. 186, 203, 862 P.2d 368, 378; In re Marriage of Anderson (1993), 260 Mont. 246, 255, 859 P.2d 451, 457. Additionally, the court must consider the factors set forth in § 40-4-204, MCA, as well as those found in the Child Support Guidelines, Title 46, chapter 30, Montana Administrative Rules. A district court is required to make specific findings in writing to explain its calculation of child support and any deviation from the guidelines. See In re Marriage of Brandon (1995), 271 Mont. 149, 152, 894 P.2d 951, 953. As with the District Court’s property distribution, David assigns error to several of the findings which underlay the award of child support. We will address each issue individually.

A. David’s net income

David’s first assignment of error is the District Court’s classification of David’s self-employment earnings as wages, instead of as self-employment net earnings. On appeal, David claims that the District Court calculated his net income as $50,000, when in actuality his net income is much less. Upon review of the District Court’s findings, we note that David is mistaken and the District Court calculated his net income to be $30,040.

The District Court listed David’s $50,000 income under the section of the child support guidelines worksheet labeled “Gross income (annual).” This section includes “self-employment net earnings” as well as “wages” and various other sources of income. There is no indication in the record that the District Court intended to categorize this income as “wages” and not as “self-employment net earnings.” The District Court took into consideration the fact that a self-employed individual has greater taxes for such items as social security in the “Allowable deductions (annual)” portion of the worksheet. In David’s case, his total allowable deductions, including alimony, federal, state, old fund, and social security taxes, totaled $19,960. David’s total net income was, therefore, accurately calculated by the District Court as $30,040 which coincides with David’s contention on appeal that “[his] net earning at best as reflected by his own tax returns is not even $40,000.” Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s calculation of David’s net income.

B. Mayla’s gross income

David’s second assignment of error with regard to the child support award is the District Court’s calculation of Mayla’s gross income. His argument on appeal is that the District Court undervalued Mayla’s income and, therefore, caused him to have to pay a greater amount in child support. David contends that Mayla’s gross income is $38,811. This includes her wages of $33,912 and $4,899 in annual employer provided medical benefits. The District Court, on the other hand, concluded that Mayla’s gross income totals $39,912, which includes her wages of $33,912 and $6,000 of “other taxable income.” The District Court calculated Mayla’s gross income as $1,101 more than David’s own calculation of her income. The District Court’s inclusion of $6,000 as “other taxable income” more than sufficiently provides for such things as Mayla’s annual employer provided medical benefits. We therefore affirm the District Court’s calculation of Mayla’s gross income.

C. Mayla’s assets

David argues that the District Court erred when it calculated the value of Mayla’s bank account and other assets. He contends that at the time the court determined the amount of child support David was to pay, Mayla had $10,000 in her bank account and a certificate of deposit worth $14,000. During the second trial in this matter, Mayla testified to the existence of these assets; however, these amounts are not included in the child support guidelines worksheet used by the court. If, in fact, these assets were present at the time the child support calculations were made, then the District Court must take them into consideration as part of the child support calculation. Therefore, we vacate the child support award and remand this issue to the District Court for a redetermination of the parties’ child support obligations after considering those funds.

D. Deductions from Mayla’s gross income

David contends that the District Court erred when it allowed as deductions from Mayla’s gross income, $600 per year for union dues, $2,204 per year for retirement contributions, $248 per month for medical insurance premiums, and all Montana Worker’s Compensation Employee Tax Liability payments. David argues that either there is no evidence which would support these deductions or, in the case of the Montana Worker’s Compensation Tax Liability payments, there is evidence that directly contradicts the District Court’s inclusion of that amount as a deduction from Mayla’s gross income. We agree, based on our review of the record, that there was no proof of Mayla’s obligation to pay these amounts. Therefore, when the District Court recalculates the child support amount on remand, we hold that these amounts are not to be included as deductions from Mayla’s income.

E. Variance from the child support guidelines

David farther contends that the District Court failed to consider as a variance from the child support guidelines the cost of long-distance visitation with his children. According to David, this cost amounts to $862 per year in travel expenses. David also argues that the District Court failed to take into consideration, as a variance from the child support guidelines, his financial condition. A court is allowed to grant a variance from the child support guidelines to account for the financial condition of a parent and the costs related to long-distance visitation. See 46.30.1543(h) and (1), ARM. Upon review of the child support guidelines worksheet used by the District Court, we agree that the court failed to take into consideration both the cost of David’s long-distance visitation with his children and his financial condition when calculating the amount of child support. David presented evidence at trial of long-distance visitation expenses, as well as his present debt. It is unclear why the District Court deviated from the guidelines by not considering these factors in its calculation of child support. A district court is required to make specific findings in writing which explain how it calculated its award of child support pursuant to the guidelines and any deviation therefrom. See Stufft, 276 Mont. at 458, 916 P.2d at 770. Therefore, these factors should be considered by the District Court as part of its recalculation of child support after remand.

F. Child Support Enforcement Division lien

David’s final assignment of error with regard to the child support calculations is that the court abused its discretion by not crediting toward his back child support obligation, amounts seized by virtue of a Child Support Enforcement Division lien. Upon the sale of the house and property jointly owned by the parties, although awarded to Mayla in the property distribution, the $155,000 sale proceeds were divided into a number of payments to various creditors. One such payment was made to Mayla for back child support by virtue of a CSED lien in the amount of $13,163.70. With regard to this payment the District Court stated “[t]he payment of the child support lien to [Mayla] at best was a reduction of her net equity in the amount of $6,581.85 for half a reduction of [David’s] net equity amount. The $6,581.85 applicable to [Mayla] cannot be considered as child support from [David].” The court’s reason for not crediting the CSED payment as back child support from David is that the house itself and the proceeds therefrom were distributed to Mayla. Therefore, all the funds remaining after the sale of the home and payment of creditors are Mayla’s. A child support payment hen against the sale of the home would only give Mayla funds which already belonged to her. Although the CSED characterized these funds as back child support payments, the District Court correctly concluded that amounts allocated to Mayla pursuant to the property settlement agreement cannot be a substitute for David’s child support obligation. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court correctly found that David’s total arrearage, as of the date of its findings and conclusions, amounts to $13,712. Accordingly, we affirm this finding of the District Court.

ISSUE 3

Did the District Court err when it awarded maintenance to Mayla?

On remand, the District Court ordered David to pay maintenance in the following amounts:

6. Pursuant to the factors set forth in Section 40-4-203 M.C.A., for the period of May 1995 through June 1996 Wife is entitled to receive maintenance in the amount of $2000.00 per month. Husband owes Wife for 14 months of maintenance at $2000.00 per month, or $28,000.00. Pursuant to the factors set forth in Section 40-4-203 M.C.A., from July 1996 Wife is entitled to receive maintenance in the sum of $500.00 per month. Husband owes Wife for maintenance from July 1996 to January 1997, 8 months at $500.00, or $4000.00. When Husband has paid in full the $47,685.56 owing under 5 above, the amount of maintenance owing will reduce to $250.00 per month. Husband owes Wife $32,000.00 as and for unpaid maintenance.

We review a district court’s findings of fact related to maintenance to determine if they are clearly erroneous. See In re Marriage of Eschenbacher (1992), 253 Mont. 139, 142, 831 P.2d 1353, 1355. If they are not clearly erroneous, we review the district court’s award to determine if there has been an abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Smith (1993), 260 Mont. 533, 535, 861 P.2d 189, 190.

Maintenance is provided for in § 40-4-203, MCA, whereby:

[T]he court may grant a maintenance order for either spouse only if it finds the spouse seeking maintenance:
(a) lacks sufficient property to provide for his reasonable needs; and
(b) is unable to support himself through appropriate employment ....
(2) The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just, without regard to marital misconduct, and after considering all relevant facts including:
(a) the financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to him, and his ability to meet his needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party as custodian;
(c) the standard of living established during the marriage;
(d) the duration of the marriage;
(e) the age and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance; and
(f) the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance.

On appeal, David argues that, when determining its award of maintenance, the court failed to take into consideration three facts regarding Mayla’s income and assets: first, that Mayla has been gainfully employed as a teacher since September 1995 with a salary of $33,912 per year; second, that she receives medical premiums of $408.33 per month; and third, that she has a bank account balance of $10,000. He also claims that the state of his income and expenses does not support an award of maintenance.

The District Court based its award of maintenance, in part, on David’s farm salary, which the court identified as $50,000 per year, and David’s highest earned annual salary as an attorney of $92,000 per year. The court noted that David himself claimed that his income would continue at between $40,000 and $60,000 annually. Based on these figures, the District Court found that David has the ability to pay the maintenance ordered.

David contends that because of the sale of the Stufft family farm, income resulting from any work he performed as a manager of the farm is no longer possible for him to obtain. He further contends that the $92,000 annual salary from his law practice was a one-time salary which was the result of one large verdict during that year. Otherwise, David claims, his law practice consists of one regular client in Cut Bank and an average annual salary of $36,400.

While Mayla presented evidence of need, the District Court’s award of maintenance is not consistent with the evidence of David’s financial condition. Nor does it appear to take into consideration Mayla’s bank account balance and the $408.33 worth of medical premiums she receives each month. An award of maintenance must be based on substantial evidence presented by the parties and clearly identified and articulated by the court. Because the evidence of the parties’ relative financial circumstances does not support an award of maintenance after Mayla commenced her employment, we vacate the award following that date and remand to the District Court for a calculation of the correct amount due prior to that date.

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the District Court for further findings consistent with this opinion.

CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE, JUSTICES REGNIER, HUNT and DISTRICT JUDGE MIZNER, sitting in place of JUSTICE NELSON concur.