James Warren v. State ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                            May 13 2008
    DA 07-0309
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2008 MT 172N
    JAMES M. WARREN,
    Petitioner and Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF MONTANA,
    Respondent and Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM:          District Court of the First Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADV 06-887
    Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    James M. Warren (Pro Se), Shelby, Montana
    For Appellee:
    Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Mark W. Mattioli, Assistant
    Attorney General, Helena, Montana
    Leo Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney; Tara Harris, Deputy
    County Attorney, Helena, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: April 24, 2008
    Decided: May 13, 2008
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
    Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
    as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
    its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
    quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
    ¶2     Appellant James Michael Warren (Warren), proceeding pro se, appeals the District
    Court’s order denying his petition for postconviction relief. We affirm.
    ¶3     Warren was convicted of two counts of felony assault with a weapon and one count of
    felony criminal mischief. This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal on November
    29, 2005, in State v. Warren, 
    2005 MT 300N
    , 
    330 Mont. 399
    , 
    126 P.3d 506
    .
    ¶4     Warren filed a petition for postconviction relief on December 11, 2006. He asserted
    four claims: 1) ineffective assistance of counsel; 2) malicious prosecution and “biased
    judicial activism;” 3) due process violations; and 4) actual innocence. The District Court
    denied relief with respect to Warren’s ineffective assistance claim based upon Warren’s
    failure to prove that his counsel had been ineffective or that Warren had suffered any
    prejudice from this alleged ineffectiveness.     The court rejected Warren’s malicious
    prosecution claim based on Warren’s failure to provide factual support and on the basis that
    the claim was procedurally barred. The court similarly determined that Warren had failed to
    present any facts in support of his due process claim and that the claim lacked merit. The
    court finally determined that Warren’s actual innocence claim was procedurally barred in
    2
    light of the fact that Warren, in essence, sought to pursue a sufficiency of evidence claim that
    should have been pursued on direct appeal. Warren appeals.
    ¶5      Warren makes conclusory allegations regarding his counsel’s actions during trial. He
    further provides unsubstantiated allegations regarding the malicious prosecution claim, the
    due process claim, and his actual innocence claim. We review a district court’s denial of a
    petition for postconviction relief to determine whether the district court’s findings of fact are
    clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law are correct. Hartinger v. State, 
    2007 MT 141
    , ¶ 19, 
    337 Mont. 432
    , ¶ 19, 
    162 P.3d 95
    , ¶ 19. A petitioner seeking to reverse a
    district court’s denial of a petition for postconviction relief “‘bears a heavy burden.’”
    Garrett v. State, 
    2005 MT 197
    , ¶ 10, 
    328 Mont. 165
    , ¶ 10, 
    119 P.3d 55
    , ¶ 10 (quoting State v.
    Cobell, 
    2004 MT 46
    , ¶ 14, 
    320 Mont. 122
    , ¶ 14, 
    86 P.3d 20
    , ¶ 14). We have determined to
    decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules,
    as amended in 2003, that provide for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the
    briefs and record before us that Warren has failed to prove that the District Court’s findings
    of fact were clearly erroneous and that its legal conclusions were incorrect. Warren has
    failed to carry his very heavy burden seeking to reverse the District Court’s order. Garrett,
    ¶ 10.
    ¶6      We affirm.
    /S/ BRIAN MORRIS
    We Concur:
    /S/ KARLA M. GRAY
    3
    /S/ JAMES C. NELSON
    /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
    /S/ JOHN WARNER
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-0309

Filed Date: 5/13/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014