Blanket v. State , 2004 MT 251N ( 2004 )

No. 03-450
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2004 MT 251N
WAYNE SPOTTED BLANKET,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lake, Cause No. DC-96-112,
The Honorable C. B. McNeil, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Scott Albers, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney
General; Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Robert J. Long, Lake County Attorney, Polson, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 17, 2004
Decided: September 8, 2004
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Regnier 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. The decision 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 non-citable cases issued by this Court.
¶2 Wayne Spotted Blanket (Spotted Blanket), then fourteen years old, pled guilty to
several offenses including multiple rapes and burglaries he committed in 1996. The District
Court committed him to the Department of Corrections for fifty years. In 2002, Spotted
Blanket filed a Petition for Postconviction Relief arguing the District Court erroneously
sentenced him under the wrong statute. The District Court denied Spotted Blanket’s Petition
and Spotted Blanket appeals. We affirm.
¶3 The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it denied Spotted
Blanket’s Petition for Postconviction Relief?
BACKGROUND
¶4 Spotted Blanket was charged with multiple rapes and burglaries committed in 1996.
He was fourteen years old at the time. Details of the incidents are found in our decision in
State v. Spotted Blanket, 1998 MT 59, 288 Mont. 126, 955 P.2d 1347. Spotted Blanket pled
guilty and was sentenced in June of 1997. The District Court committed him to the
Department of Corrections for a total of fifty years.
¶5 In June of 2002, Spotted Blanket filed a Petition for Postconviction Relief (Petition)
before the District Court. In his Petition, Spotted Blanket argued that pursuant to § 46-18-
2
201(1)(e), MCA (1997), the maximum commitment to the Department of Corrections was
five years. The State responded that Spotted Blanket was properly sentenced under the
statute in effect at the time of the commission of the offense, § 46-18-201(1)(e), MCA
(1995). The District Court ruled in favor of the State and Spotted Blanket appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6 The standard of review of a trial court's denial of a petition for postconviction relief
is whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of
law are correct. Hope v. State, 2003 MT 191, ¶ 13, 316 Mont. 497, ¶ 13, 74 P.3d 1039, ¶ 13.
DISCUSSION
¶7 Spotted Blanket was convicted in May of 1997 when he pled guilty in District Court.
Pursuant to § 46-21-102, MCA (1997), the period for filing a petition for postconviction
relief is one year. Spotted Blanket’s conviction became final one year from the date his
direct appeal was resolved, which was in March of 1998. Spotted Blanket did not file for
postconviction relief until June of 2002, more than four years after his conviction became
final. Thus, his Petition is time-barred under § 46-21-102, MCA (1997). The District Court
should not have addressed Spotted Blanket’s Petition on its merits because of the time-bar
and we decline to do so now.
¶8 We affirm the District Court’s denial of Spotted Blanket’s Petition for Postconviction
Relief.
/S/ JIM REGNIER
3
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
4