Ryan v. State ( 2002 )

No. 02-360
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2002 MT 244N
DOUGLAS E. RYAN,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and for the County of Silver Bow,
The Honorable John W. Whelan, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Douglas E. Ryan, Pro Se, Shelby, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Robert McCarthy, Silver Bow County Attorney, Butte, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 10, 2002
Decided: November 7, 2002
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court
1996 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be
cited as precedent but shall be filed as a public document with the
Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,
Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter
Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of
noncitable cases issued by this Court.
¶2 Douglas E. Ryan (Ryan) appeals from the order entered by the
Second Judicial District Court, Silver Bow County, denying his
motion for transcripts and the production of documents relating to
his underlying convictions. We affirm.
¶3 The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred
in denying Ryan’s motion.
BACKGROUND
¶4 In August of 1999, the State of Montana (State) filed two
informations against Ryan, the first alleging he had committed the
felony offense of theft and the second alleging he had committed
the felony offenses of theft and criminal endangerment. Ryan
subsequently pleaded guilty to all three offenses. On January 13,
2000, the District Court sentenced Ryan to 10-year commitments to
the Department of Corrections on each count, with the sentences to
run concurrently. On April 21, 2000, the court amended Ryan’s
sentences to three concurrent 10-year terms, with five years
suspended on each, and entered judgment on the convictions and
sentences. Ryan did not appeal.
2
¶5 In April of 2002, Ryan filed a motion with the District Court
requesting copies of transcripts and documents relating to his
underlying convictions. In his motion, Ryan asserted he had made
numerous unsuccessful attempts to get the documents from both his
attorney and the Silver Bow County Attorney’s office. He further
contended the documents were necessary in order for him to prepare
a petition for postconviction relief alleging his convictions were
invalid on the bases that there was no evidence of the crimes
charged, his guilty pleas were involuntary, his counsel was
ineffective and the State withheld exculpatory evidence. The
District Court, noting that Ryan’s motion essentially challenged
the constitutional validity of his convictions, deemed the motion
to be a petition for postconviction relief and denied it as
untimely filed. Ryan appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6 We review a district court’s denial of a petition for
postconviction relief to determine whether the court’s findings of
fact are clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law correct.
State v. Wright, 2001 MT 282, ¶ 9, 307 Mont. 349, ¶ 9, 42 P.3d 753,
¶ 9.
DISCUSSION
¶7 Did the District Court err in denying Ryan’s motion?
¶8 As stated above, the District Court deemed Ryan’s motion to be
one for postconviction relief and denied it on the basis it was
untimely filed. In that regard, a petition for postconviction
relief must be filed within one year of the date a conviction
3
becomes final. Section 46-21-102(1), MCA. A conviction becomes
final when, among other things, the time for appeal to this Court
expires. Section 46-21-102(1)(a), MCA. An appeal in a criminal
case must be filed within 60 days after entry of the judgment
appealed from. Rule 5(b), M.R.App.P. Here, the amended judgments
were filed on April 21, 2000, and Ryan’s convictions therefore
became final on June 20, 2000. Ryan did not file his motion until
April of 2002, long after the one-year period in which to file a
petition for postconviction relief had run.
¶9 Ryan concedes that he did not file a postconviction relief
petition within the one-year period as required by § 46-21-102(1),
MCA. He contends, however, that at all times during that period he
had been making diligent efforts to acquire the transcripts and
documents related to the underlying proceedings which he contends
were necessary before he could prepare and file such a petition.
He further contends it is only because the State, his attorney and
the District Court did not comply with his requests for the
documents that he was unable to file a petition within the one-year
period. Essentially, Ryan argues that the statutory time limit on
filing a petition for postconviction relief should be equitably
tolled until he is able to acquire the information he asserts he
needs.
¶10 The one-year time period in which to file a postconviction
relief petition set forth in § 46-21-102, MCA, is a jurisdictional
limitation on litigation and may only be waived where the failure
to do so would result in a clear miscarriage of justice. State v.
4
Abe, 2001 MT 260, ¶ 15, 307 Mont. 233, ¶ 15, 37 P.3d 77, ¶ 15;
State v. Wells, 2001 MT 55, ¶ 10, 304 Mont. 329, ¶ 10, 21 P.3d 610,
¶ 10 (overruled on other grounds in State v. Whitehorn, 2002 MT 54,
¶ 42, 309 Mont. 63, ¶ 42, 43 P.3d 922, ¶ 42). This miscarriage of
justice exception is very narrow, and applies only where a
defendant alleges the existence of newly discovered evidence which
establishes that he or she did not commit the underlying offense.
Abe, ¶ 15; Wells, ¶ 10. Ryan does not allege the existence of any
evidence showing he is innocent of the offenses for which he was
convicted. Consequently, the miscarriage of justice exception does
not apply here.
¶11 We conclude Ryan’s petition for postconviction relief is
barred by the § 46-21-102(1), MCA, one-year limitation period. We
hold, therefore, that the District Court did not err in denying
Ryan’s motion on that basis.
¶12 Affirmed.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
We concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
5